Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRITS

For the county constituency of Bootle, in the room Mike Carr, Esq., deceased.

For the county constituency of Bradford, North, in the room of Charles Patrick Wall, Esq., deceased.—[Mr. Foster.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF DUNDEE DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Mr. Secretary Rifkind presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to the City of Dundee District Council; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered on Tuesday 23 October and to be printed. [Bill 199.]

ZETLAND MASONIC SICK AND WIDOWS AND ORPHANS FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Mr. Secretary Rifkind presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to the Zetland Masonic Sick and Widows and Orphans Fund; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered on Tuesday 23 October and to be printed. [Bill 200.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Steel Industry

Mr. Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet representatives of trade unions in the Scottish steel industry to discuss the future of steel in Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I met representatives of the Ravenscraig trade unions on 11 October. My hon. Friend the Minister for industry and local government met representatives of the Dalzell trade unions on 15 October. I am prepared to meet them again as occasion demands.

Mr. Robertson: The Secretary of State will be aware of the deep and passionate concern in Lanarkshire not only among the trade unions but throughout the community about the future of Ravenscraig and Dalzell. We want to know whether, at yesterday's meeting with the chairman of British Steel plc, he received answers to the questions put by the shop stewards at Ravenscraig, which he undertook to put at any meeting that he had with Sir Robert. Did he receive any answers to those questions? Did he receive any assurances from British Steel about co-operation with the Scottish Development Agency inquiry into the Scottish steel industry? What confidence can the people of Scotland have in any assurances given by British Steel, given its past record and the contemptuous way in which it has treated the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: With regard to the representations of the trade unions, I did as I undertook when I met Mr. Brennan and gave Sir Robert the detailed questions to which he and his colleagues wished answers. I put to Sir Robert the utility of trying to respond to those questions as much as he felt able to do. With regard to British Steel's attitude to the SDA study, in response to my representations Sir Robert Scholey said that British Steel would co-operate with the Scottish Development Agency study on the prospects for the steel industry in Scotland. He further said that he intended to have a meeting with Sir David Nickson, chairman of the Scottish Development Agency, to discuss that matter. Sir Robert gave me a full assurance that British Steel would not dismantle or remove any plant from the hot strip mill in advance of its proposed closure next April.

Dr. Bray: Will the Secretary of State invite British Steel to join the Government, perhaps other steel companies and the European Commission in a study of the treatment of Ravenscraig as a development plant for the introduction of the next generation of new technology, which is more efficient and produces higher quality steel, including thin-slab casting? Is he aware that that is within the policies of the steel strategy of the European Community, his research and development strategy, his energy policies and his environmental strategy and that it would qualify for state aid under the European Community state aids regime?

Mr. Rifkind: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this suggestion, because he has raised it in the


past. I hope that British Steel will fully consider any proposals, including that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, to find out whether this is a potential project which should attract investment by British Steel and get support from a wider circle.

Mr. Devlin: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the trade unions that the long-term viability of the steel industry can be guaranteed only if decisions on future investment are made for valid commercial reasons and not for political reasons? Will he tell the trade unions that the most commercially competitive and productive plant in this country is at Teesside and that it would be a tragedy to dismantle it because of the political machinations of the Labour party in Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: I cannot comment on the details involving the Teesside plant, to which my hon. Friend understandably referred, given his constituency interest. I think that there is now agreement on both sides of the House that the steel industry's future must be decided on commercial grounds. When I met the trade unions, they emphasised their view that commercial considerations should apply. Of course, there must be a debate on what the commercial conclusions should lead to and on whether one should argue in favour of Ravenscraig or against it. Naturally, we in the Scottish Office hope that British Steel will fully take account of the commercial case for investment not simply at Ravenscraig but at Dalzell.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that, in effect, the meeting yesterday between himself and the chairman of British Steel was a meeting between two private citizens, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman has effectively given up his ability to influence British Steel's decisions in spite of Ravenscraig's commercial viability? Can he tell the House when the SDA's study on the future of the steel industry in Scotland is likely to be available and whether it is likely to be available in sufficient time to contribute to reversing this disastrous decision?

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Liberal party, is calling for the renationalisation of the steel industry—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, unless that is what he is doing, he exposes the bankruptcy and double standards of his earlier question. We expect the preliminary conclusions of the SDA's study to be available by Christmas and final conclusions early in the new year. On that basis, I am particularly pleased that British Steel is to co-operate with the study. Obviously, there will be limits with regard to commercially confidential information. It is important to note that British Steel will co-operate with the study, that Sir Robert will discuss the study with Sir David Nickson and that no irreversible action will be taken on the plant until the study's conclusions are known and can be taken into account.

Steel Industry

Dr. Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the Scottish steel industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rifkind: I met the chairman of British Steel yesterday when we discussed matters relevant to the steel industry in Scotland.

Dr. Reid: British Steel's commitment to co-operate with the SDA's study and the guarantee that the hot strip mill will not be dismantled, destroyed, cannibalised or removed before the study's completion are two steps forward, and it would be churlish of me to say otherwise.
However, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that British Steel will be more co-operative with the SDA in supplying information on Ravenscraig than it has been up to now with him? Given the rumours that now constantly sweep the Scottish steel industry, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the works that were not mentioned—the Clydesdale tubes plant at Bellshill, were on the agenda for discussion yesterday? Can he give me a categorical assurance that he was given no information by the chairman of British Steel that would indicate an imminent or serious threat to the Clydesdale tubes works?

Mr. Rifkind: I asked Sir Robert about the Clydesdale works and he was not able to give me any decisions or conclusions reached by British Steel. He emphasised the difficult position faced by the seamless tubes sector and indicated, as has been said publicly in the past, that British Steel was looking for ways of identifying a possible future for at least part of that project. I do not conceal from the hon. Gentleman my concern about that plant's future, for reasons with which the House is familiar.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the willingness to co-operate with the SDA's study and particularly the agreement not to dismantle any part of the plant in advance of the study's conclusions. Clearly, part of the purpose of the SDA study is to seek to identify commercial opportunities for the steel industry in Scotland. It ought to be relevant for British Steel to wish to co-operate with that effort and with the report's conclusions if such opportunities are identified.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is inexplicable that such a highly profitable company should refuse to give a coherent reason for the closure of the hot strip mill? How can we possibly test the commercial judgment of British Steel if we cannot have the facts on which it has based its decision?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct, and it is for precisely that reason that I and others have said that we cannot say whether the conclusion reached by British Steel is or is not justified. Clearly, one would have to have access to the information before one could be expected to agree or comment in any detail on the commercial judgment of British Steel.

Mr. McAvoy: In supporting all that my hon. Friends have said about the Scottish steel industry, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he is aware of the contribution made to that industry by the highly skilled work force at Clydebridge and Cambuslang in my constituency? Will the Secretary of State undertake to ensure that Clydebridge is also high on the agenda for his discussions with the British Steel chairman?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes. I can confirm that we are equally concerned with all employees and all aspects of the steel industry in Scotland. The SDA study does not concern itself with only one plant; its authors have deliberately and expressly been asked to consider the prospects for the steel industry in Scotland as a whole and that includes the plant to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Holt: May I advise my right hon. and learned Friend that, since his meeting yesterday with the chairman of British Steel, the board of British Steel has met? I have been in contact with the company, which has assured me that its expansion plans and other works on Teesside will go ahead, that it is not being influenced by the Scottish lobby on this matter and that the expansion of jobs in my constituency—which no Labour Member in the north-east of England has tried to defend—will go ahead.

Mr. Rifkind: Clearly, those are matters for British Steel. I do not believe that it is helpful for any part of the United Kingdom to seek to achieve benefits at the expense of any other. We are all seeking to achieve a healthy steel industry in the United Kingdom as a whole, and I believe that all my hon. Friends will share that view.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Has the Secretary of State had the misfortune to read the ill-informed, sloppy and uninviting academic report that describes Coatbridge as one of the worst towns in the whole of Britain? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that this once-proud iron burgh is still suffering from the fact that the iron and steel masters, having made their money, have pulled out? Will he ensure that other towns do not have the same experience, especially at a time when steel is as competitive as it is today?

Mr. Rifkind: Many towns—it is perhaps true of every town in the United Kingdom—have had, at some time in their history, to adapt to new industrial requirements and the changing patterns of industry. I have no doubt that the genius and ability of the people of Coatbridge will enable them to cope with the effects of any difficulties that they have experienced in recent years and to attract new industry, employment and prosperity for those who have the good fortune to live in the town.

Mr. Sillars: Is the Secretary of State aware that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has managed to give us much more information about British Steel's investment than the right hon. and learned Gentleman has? Is he aware of his responsibilities to the Scottish people? Is he further aware that one cannot talk about the future of the Scottish steel industry without reference to what is happening on Teesside? Did he ask the chairman of British Steel about the foundation already laid for the pipe mill at Hartlepool, and is he aware of the link, through the pipe mill, to a single plate mill strategy? Is he aware that if that goes to Lackenby, it will be at the expense of Dalzell? Did he ask those questions? What was the response?

Mr. Rifkind: I have two things to say in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, the bulk of our discussions was about the prospects for the steel plants in Scotland. I raised with Sir Robert the claim that I believe was made by the hon. Gentleman at the end of last week that he was privy to information that the decision on the Dalzell plate mill would be delayed for two years. I regret to say that I was informed that the hon. Gentleman's allegation was, as usual, complete nonsense.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Having heard that Coatbridge is allegedly the worst place in which to live, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Perth and Kinross has been

adjudged the place with the highest quality of life and the best place to live in Scotland—no doubt because of its representation?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. and learned Friend's most excellent representation of that worthy borough and county at least in part explains his reputation with the nation as a whole.

Mr. Dewar: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is little consolation for the stewards at Ravenscraig to be told that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has urged upon Sir Robert the utility of responding as far as he is able to do to their questions? Is not it time that the Secretary of State delivered his promises, got to the facts and forced British Steel to come clean about the reasons behind the decision to close the strip mill?
However, may I welcome what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said about British Steel not dismantling or removing any plant from the strip mill in advance of the report commissioned by the Scottish Development Agency? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make it clear that there will be no removal of any plant before the publication of the report and before a proper assessment of its findings? I ask him to clarify that, because his earlier answer stated that there would be no removal in advance of the proposed closure, which is a very different circumstance. We want a guarantee that there will be no removal until the report is available and has been assessed. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman guarantee that, when the report is available, he will be prepared to meet Sir Robert Scholey and to go to battle on behalf of the Scottish steel industry if the report reaches positive conclusions about its future which, I am sure, is what all hon. Members hope?
Finally, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman remember that on 16 May when he first dealt in the House with the proposed closure of the strip mill, he deplored the decision and its implications for the work force and pledged:
we shall seek to persuade British Steel to reconsider its proposal".—[Official Report, 16 May 1990; Vol. 172, c. 887.]
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman still trying to do that?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I certainly am. On the hon. Gentleman's earlier point, I have no doubt that it will be desirable for me to see Sir Robert again in the next few weeks or months, depending on how matters develop.
I have two points in response to the hon. Gentleman's other questions. First, the categorical assurance that Sir Robert gave me was that there would be no dismantling of the plant or of any part of it before the proposed closure in April next year. Secondly, however, Sir Robert also stated his intention to co-operate with the SDA study. I would find it inconceivable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I am answering the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I would find it inconceivable that British Steel would wish to take any action that would be inconsistent with the proper consideration of the conclusions that that study might reach. We expect the study to come to its preliminary conclusions by December of this year and that will give an early opportunity at least to consider the general conclusions, proposals or ideas. There will be further opportunities early next year. That


matter will need to be dealt with in the spirit as well as the letter of the assurance that was received from Sir Robert Scholey.

Mr. Speaker: I allowed a long run on that important matter, but we must now move on more rapidly.

Council Houses

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in Scotland since May 1979.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Since April 1979 more than 210,000 public sector houses in Scotland have been sold to sitting tenants. Included in this figure are more than 147,000 sales by local authorities. Owner-occupation now amounts to 50 per cent. of the total number of houses in Scotland.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend expect that the extension of the rents-into-mortgages scheme to local authority tenants, which was announced last week, will result in a significant increase in home ownership in Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I certainly do. In the course of time eligibility will be open to 320,000 local authority tenants—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) is putting up five fingers. I must point out that ten times as many as that will have bought their homes under the trial scheme by the end of the month and that there will be 200 by the end of March. In the first year of the right to buy only 10 Scottish special housing association tenants bought; it takes time for the process to gather momentum.
The average weekly payment under the rents into mortgages scheme will be about £18 and the average weekly council rent is £20·89, so this is a very good opportunity for those in a position to afford it.

Mr. McAllion: Has the Minister read the copy of the Dundee house conditions survey that was recently given him? Did he fully comprehend the awful state of housing that it describes? Eighteen thousand council houses are riddled with damp and condensation; 15,000 require urgent repairs; 4,000 require whole window replacement. Will he get it into his skull and into the skulls of all his fellow Ministers that rents into mortgages do nothing to alleviate these Dickensian housing conditions? Will he therefore undertake to send a loud and clear message to the Treasury that what is required is massive new investment in the housing stock across Scotland? If Ministers are not prepared to fight Scotland's corner they must move aside for those of us in the Opposition who are.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In the past Dundee district council was taking more than a year to process council house sales. If it had processed them more quickly it would have received considerably more funds for its public sector stock. I am also advised that this year we increased net public expenditure for housing by about £40 million as compared with last year as a result of the drop in right-to-buy receipts. We shall consider the representations made to us by the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) in the final allocations that will be made later this year.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the failure of Dundee council to run its housing stock is an argument for encouraging more owner-occupation and a smaller public sector, not a larger one? Would he like to suggest that Dundee corporation sorts out its problems instead of running an independent foreign policy, linked as it is with Nablus on the west bank of Israel?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I strongly agree that home ownership is an aspiration of a large number of Scots who do not have the opportunities now, and I believe that they will have them in future. I also suggest that authorities such as Dundee, which I shall visit again shortly with the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), would be well advised to do what they are doing—to work closely with housing associations, and to explore all the possibilities, including the possibility of using its land bank—this applies to authorities that have land banks—[HON. MEMBERS: "They are doing it."] I am glad to hear that.

Constitutional Status

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had in the current year regarding the constitutional status of Scotland within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Rifkind: Nineteen letters regarding the constitutional status of Scotland have been received during the current year.

Mr. Wallace: Will the Secretary of State also tell us when he expects to receive the report commissioned by leading Conservative business men in Scotland on the future government of Scotland? In the meantime will he take some time to look at the experience of West Germany where, over many years, decentralised powers and administration have gone hand in hand with business and economic success?

Mr. Rifkind: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question appears to refer to a newspaper report in The Scotsman, which referred to certain business men, who were not named, who had asked an academic, who was not referred to, to produce a report that no one had requested. It is an interesting bit of newspaper speculation, which, as far as I am aware, has no foundation in truth.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the West German experience bears no relation to the proposals put forward either by the Labour party or by the so-called constitutional convention, which wants to create unilateral devolution with an assembly in Scotland but no significant or fundamental change in the rest of the United Kingdom. That would create the dangers and the additional level of taxation that would be so damaging to Scottish prosperity.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the people of Scotland are right to regard the conclusions of the so-called self-appointed constitutional convention with complete boredom and indifference? Would not it be better to pay full heed to the opinions of leading business men such as Mr. Ewan Marwick of the Association of Scottish Chambers of Commerce who has consistently opposed devolution in the light of his outstanding personal knowledge of business and industry in the west of Scotland, including Paisley?

Mr. Rifkind: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the important contribution to the debate made by Mr. Marwick and his colleagues. My hon. Friend asked about the constitutional convention. I hope that in one respect people in Scotland will not treat the views and recommendations of the so-called convention with boredom or indifference. It is important for the public to be aware that that convention and the Labour party are proposing that the people of Scotland, under such an assembly, should be subject to an additional level of income tax which would not be paid in any other part of the United Kingdom. The damage to Scottish jobs and prosperity which would result from that would be devastating for the future of Scotland.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: If the Secretary of State is so concerned about the people of Scotland, why is he so rigid in his opposition to the idea that people should have the right democratically to express through a referendum their views on Scotland's constitutional future? Given that his party has one stance, that the constitutional convention is bringing forward a devolution package and that my party supports the idea of independence in Europe, does he not think that there should be an opportunity for the Scots to have a choice on these matters? Is it the case that, like the Prime Minister who is afraid to debate constitutional matters in relation to Europe, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is just a big fearty on Scottish constitutional matters?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Lady is unwise to draw such a conclusion, because she will he aware that her party and mine declined to take part in the so-called convention precisely because we believe that talking shops of that kind are unlikely to be of any practical benefit to people. She will also be aware that the nationalist proposal for a referendum has had very little support from other political parties or from other expressions of opinion with interests in constitutional matters. It has been seen as a slogan by her party with little else to commend it.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if Scotland wishes to remain part of the United Kingdom, and all the indications are that it does, any change in its unique constitutional position would have to be agreed and accepted by this House and by the other place before such change could be implemented? Any attempt to persuade the people of Scotland about measures that would never get through the House must be either flawed or fraudulent or both.

Mr. Rifkind: What my hon. Friend says was the experience of the last Labour Government. It is right that all the citizens of the United Kingdom should take an interest in these matters. Apart from anything else, there are several hundred thousand if not millions of Scots living in England. Under the SNP proposals they would become foreigners in the country in which they are presently our fellow citizens. The people of Scotland are well aware that the United Kingdom as a nation has existed for almost 300 years and that the proposals of those who seek fundamental constitutional change would cause serious damage.

Mr. Dewar: Is not it a mark of the Government's desperation that when they look for an independent authority to quote on this issue they come up with an inexperienced parliamentary candidate, Mr. Marwick? If

the concept of what the Secretary of State is pleased to call unilateral devolution is so objectionable in principle, why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman resign Front Bench office in the Conservative party over its failure to support what was a unilateral scheme? Does he agree that it is silly to spread daft scare stories about well-thought-out constitutional convention schemes which would give a greater say to Scots over Scottish affairs within the framework of the United Kingdom and which command widespread public support? Does he not realise that in so doing he sounds every day a little more like the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), and that that is doing his reputation no good at all? The Secretary of State managed to make the report in The Scotsman sound like an everyday chapter from life in Chester street at Scottish Conservative party headquarters. Does he not recognise that a growing concern is clearly surfacing about the totally negative attitude of the Conservative party to the government of Scotland? The Conservatives really must make some bid in this field if they are to retain any credibility at all.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of trivialising a serious issue by the nature of his question. The House will have noted with some interest that the one remark to which he did not respond was the clear and unmistakable proposition from his party that Scotland will be saddled with an additional level of income tax as a result of the proposals for a Scottish assembly. The failure of the so-called convention to address itself to the serious implications for the Scottish economy and Scottish jobs requires us to treat its conclusions with contempt and indifference.

Health Boards

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will increase the funding of health boards in Scotland.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Yes, additional allocations will be made to health boards to take account of the changes in the VAT rules affecting construction. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to welcome today's announcement of £150,000 towards establishing cochlear ear implant operations and surgery within Lothian district.

Mr. Griffiths: I welcome that drop in the ocean. Will the Minister acknowledge what everyone else in Scotland and in Lothian knows—that when it comes to choosing between creating patient choice or cutting patient services, the Government will cut services every time? When 14,000 patients at the Longmore hospital exercised their choice by expressing their wish that that world-famous hospital be kept open, the Secretary of State backed its disgraceful closure. In view of the incompetent handling of that issue by Lothian health board, will the Minister and the Secretary of State intervene and save Longmore?

Mr. Forsyth: Only the hon. Gentleman could complain about cuts in services in response to an announcement of a new service being established in Lothian. To describe as a drop in the ocean a service which will enable deaf people to hear is symptomatic of the hon. Gentleman's approach to the health service.
The hon. Gentleman said that Longmore is to be closed, but he knows that the service that it provides in terms of breast cancer treatment will continue at the Western general hospital at a unit in which £2 million is to be invested by the health board. That will bring the facility into a hospital where there is an oncology department, with the result that the service to patients will be improved.
It is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman to misrepresent the splendid efforts of Lothian health board to improve services for his constituents throughout its area. The hon. Gentleman delivered a letter about Longmore hospital to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, under the gaze of the cameras, but we did not receive the letter until two days later because he left the Department and posted it. Therefore, he may be unaware of the background, but he should pay tribute to the efforts that Lothian health board has made in respect of Longmore.

Mr. Strang: Does the Minister appreciate that an important element of the chronic underfunding of the health service in Lothian is the inadequate money allocated to it to tackle our AIDS problem? Is he aware that around one twelfth of the people identified as HIV positive in the United Kingdom are in Lothian but that the district receives less than 1 per cent. of the total budget for the United Kingdom, that the short-stay drug crisis centre has been postponed because of lack of money, that there is no long-term residential resettlement centre and that the cost of dealing with people with AIDS and those who are HIV positive will double every year from now on? When will the Government give us the money that we need?

Mr. Forsyth: I know that the hon. Gentleman follows these matters carefully, so he will know that the sum provided for AIDS care in Scotland is £15 million. I believe, from memory, that the share that Lothian receives is £5 million, the bulk of it going to the new unit to provide care for AIDS patients. He needs to distinguish between HIV-positive cases and cases of AIDS. He will be aware that the planning which has gone on in Glasgow, Dundee and Lothian towards provision for AIDS patients has taken account of projected numbers, and we have committed ourselves to providing the necessary resources.

Mr. Ian Bruce: What is the comparison between the funding of Scottish health boards and of English and Welsh health boards? Has my hon. Friend's Department any information about the efficiency with which that money is being used in terms of how it is translated into patient care?

Mr. Forsyth: It is well known that the Scottish health service is better funded than the health service south of the border—for example, by about one third in its hospital services. One of the interesting points about the proposal by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for the funding of a Scottish assembly is his argument for the principle of equalisation. The health service in Scotland spends twice as much as the health service south of the border on care for the elderly. In the south, that burden lies with local government—yet local government in Scotland still spends more than local government in the south. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the considerable investment in the health service in Scotland.

Housing Survey

Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish the report of the Scottish housing conditions survey; and if he will make a statement.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The results of the national house condition survey will be published in the summer of 1993.

Mr. Hogg: Is not it true that the report is not being published because it would harm the Government's prospects in the general election, because the Minister is ashamed of what it will reveal about disrepair and dampness in Scottish housing, leading to a crisis of homelessness, and because he will not make available the necessary funds properly to house the people of Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The physical survey of the sample dwellings will take place before the social survey of occupants. The two sets of data necessarily need to be compiled before the statistical analysis is conducted. It is not possible to publish the physical survey results in advance of the social survey, and all the results need to be considered as a whole. Unfortunately, an earlier publishing date is not feasible. The reporting timetable is customary for surveys of such complexity. The national house condition survey is not a substitute for local surveys, which I strongly urge all local authorities to carry out.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Minister recall that Glasgow district council carried out a local survey several years ago, but the Government have taken no action on it? Although Glasgow has the highest allocation, it still has nothing like the amount of resources that it requires.
As the survey will take the best part of three years, will the Minister undertake to visit some of the bad housing areas, such as those in my constituency, so that he can see the damp-ridden houses? He should not come to Maryhill only to open pretty, new housing estates.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Lady must be aware that I have visited 52 district councils in Scotland and have seen their housing stock. I have been to the hon. Lady's constituency several times. Although I opened a new housing project, she must appreciate that it is not possible to visit her constituency without seeing other sorts of housing. I have seen plenty of examples of damp housing. I stress that what goes into Glasgow's housing plan will be very important and will be fully taken into account before allocations are made.
On the point about local surveys, the hon. Lady is aware that Scottish Homes is spending considerable sums of money in Glasgow, and that almost £500 million has been spent by housing associations.

Transport Policy

Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will formulate an integrated transport policy for Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind: The Government believe in a balanced transport policy, providing users with as much choice as possible between competing forms of transport.

Sir David Steel: Is the Secretary of State aware that during the summer an efficient Scottish transport network


suffered two blows—first, the announcement by the Secretary of State for Transport that the new Al motorway would stop short of the Scottish border and, secondly, the announcement by ScotRail that it is postponing the modernisation programme for its rolling stock due to lack of funding? When will the Scottish Office stand up to the Treasury?

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman seems unaware that there are two major projects for improving the A1. The dual carriageway will be extended first to Haddington and then beyond that to Dunbar. A steering group has been formed between the Scottish Office and the Department of Transport to determine what further improvements might be required.
The right hon. Gentleman must know that only 5,000 vehicles per day use the stretch of road between Dunbar and the border—one tenth of the amount of traffic using those parts of the Al in the south that are to be upgraded under the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
With the near completion of the east coast line British Rail is completing the biggest ever investment in that area, amounting to some £450 million on the electrification of the line between London and Edinburgh.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that electrification is not complete when it reaches Edinburgh, but should continue up the east coast to Aberdeen? Is my right hon. and learned Friend prepared to discuss with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport British Rail's investment criteria, which are related purely to a return on investment, not to a cost benefit analysis so that road and other forms of transport benefit? Secondly, in the light of the new situation affecting the price of fuels, will he discuss with British Rail and his right hon. Friend the relative costs of diesel and electric power?

Mr. Rifkind: I am familiar with the aspirations of people in the north-east to see the electrification of the east coast line extended from Edinburgh to Aberdeen, and British Rail's recently appointed project manager in Scotland is investigating whether further electrification can be justified. I appreciate that there is a debate about whether the criteria for a return on such investment are too strict or whether they are justified. If the use of taxpayers' funds is to be justified it is not unreasonable that British Rail should be expected to obtain a return on its investment and British Rail must take that into account. Debate on that issue will clearly continue for some time yet and I am glad that British Rail has not ruled out the electrification of that section of the line in the future.

Mr. Ron Brown: If the Secretary of State does not miss the bus at the next general election but makes a journey to the centre of Leith, he will find tenants demanding repairs to their properties which Scottish Homes, under the chairmanship of Sir James Mellon, is refusing to do.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is on the wrong question. This one is about transport.

Mr. Wilson: May I assure the Secretary of State that the Government's anti-rail prejudices will be a major issue in Scotland, as elsewhere, in the run-up to the general election? What interest has the Scottish Office taken in the decision to postpone investment in the main west coast line

from London to Glasgow? Will he tell us precisely what representations the Scottish Office has made in the past months on the disastrous proposal to abolish Speedlink freight services, thereby forcing large quantities of freight from rail, to which they had been drawn, back on to the roads? The Secretary of State for Transport said that he had not referred to electrification north of Edinburgh at the Tory party conference in answering Mr. Hirst's protestations because he could not change his autocue in time. Is the Secretary of State for Scotland capable of changing his autocue to give some backing to the expansion, modernisation and electrification of rail services in Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should inform himself before he makes foolish accusations. If he suggests that the Government are against investment in the rail network, he is clearly unaware of the fact that the Government have authorised no less than £3,700 million investment by British Rail throughout the United Kingdom during the next three years, which is the largest railway investment that Britain has ever known. The fact that Scotland has already benefited from one of the largest electrification projects that the United Kingdom has ever known compounds the hon. Gentleman's foolishness in asking that question. As the hon. Gentleman knows, British Rail has not reached any conclusion on Speedlink. We are taking considerable interest in that matter and we are seeking to evaluate the implications in Scotland and elsewhere of implementing the proposal.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss local government finance.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): My right hon. and learned Friend last met the president and senior office bearers of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 6 July.

Mr. Ross: When the Minister met the president and office bearers, did he discuss with them the increasing difficulty that they and their members are encountering in encouraging people to pay their poll tax? Does he not realise that the inability of local government to draw blood from a stone by asking people living on poverty wages to pay a minimum of 20 per cent. is seriously challenging its ability to deliver services? Is it not time that he and his colleagues did away with the poll tax and started to deal with the serious underfunding from which local authorities have suffered for a number of years?

Mr. Lang: Part of the problem that local authorities have faced in collecting the community charge is the fact that so many Members of Parliament and councillors—in the Labour party and in other parties—have discouraged people from paying, thus leading them into considerable personal difficulty. In my view, they are embarking on a course of the highest irresponsibility. Despite that, however, authorities in Scotland now expect, on average, to collect some 95 per cent. of their budgeted targets. As the community charge accounts for only about one fifth of the total expenditure of local authorities, they will have about 99 per cent. of their total spend. In those circumstances, they should be able to meet the problem through prudent management of their spending.

Mr. Harris: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) has moved from the Labour Benches to the Scottish National Benches? However, it does not matter—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Has this something to do with Scottish questions? The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Harris: It does not matter where an Opposition Member sits if that hon. Member engages in the irresponsible and reprehensible action of encouraging people not pay their community charge. That hits—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House, and he knows that he must ask a question and not make statements.

Mr. Lang: I had noticed that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) had moved from the Labour Benches to those of the Scottish National party. As he has moved from one socialist party to another, however, it is hard to tell the difference.
As for the attitude to the community charge, the most unfair and irresponsible posture for any party to adopt is to encourage people not to pay their fair share. The most unfair feature of all would be for those who have contributed to the cost of local services to be asked to pay the cost of those who have not. That is something that local authorities should not be asked to do.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I think that I should call Mr. Dick Douglas.

Mr. Douglas: When the Secretary of State met COSLA, did he not say that local authorities in Scotland had fallen into the trap that he had laid for them? They are caught between a rock and a hard place. In the beginning, COSLA said that the tax was unworkable so why is it now trying to make it work by the most draconian means? I myself—and I have already been referred to—have been the subject of warrants of a dubious nature. Is it really in the mind of the Secretary of State to tell local authorities that to make the tax work they must get into the barbarous atmosphere and attitude of poinding and warrant sales? Should not the Minister go back to COSLA and say that he will review the scheme and take it away completely?

Mr. Lang: The vast majority of community charge payers have paid and are paying their community charge. The system of recovery available to local authorities is broadly the same as it was under the previous rating system. Those who are willing to ignore the irresponsible advice of politicians who tell people not to pay taxes, and are willing to pay their due to local authorities, will not have to fear the processes of recovery.

Mr. Maxton: When will the Minister stop using the rather foolish non-payment campaign being run by the Scottish National party as a shield behind which to hide and pretend that the poll tax is working? Does he not recognise that research shows that the vast majority of those who have not paid their poll tax simply cannot afford to pay it? The simple fact is that he could end the crisis tomorrow by abolishing the 20 per cent. rule, allowing a moratorium on rebates back to 1 April 1989 and improving the rebate system to make it much more

generous. He must recognise that Scottish local authorities are facing a financial crisis as a result of the poll tax itself and not because a few people are foolishly not paying it.

Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman is trying to tell me that Labour Members of Parliament and Labour councillors are refusing to pay their community charges because they cannot afford to do so, I have to tell him that I do not believe it. The vast majority of people have paid their community charge, and more than I million are eligible for a rebate, so account is taken of ability to pay. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's irresponsible position explains why his party has inconceivably decided to go back to the even more unfair and most unacceptable payment of all, with a return to the old rating system.

National Health Service

Mr. Ingram: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met Scottish health board chairmen to discuss the national health service in Scotland.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I met the chairmen of health boards on 29 June.

Mr. Ingram: It is unlikely that the Minister would have had an opportunity to discuss with them the report produced recently by the Institute of Manpower Studies, commissioned by the Scottish Office, which showed a worrying wastage rate among nurses because of the lack of opportunity to involve themselves in patient care and because of cuts in wage rates. Will the Minister discuss that report at his next meeting with board chairmen, which I hope will be in the not-too-distant future? Is not that report a damning indictment of 11 years of Tory policy and of the Government's attitude to the health service, which nurses are leaving in droves?

Mr. Forsyth: We are anxious to improve the opportunities for recruiting nurses and other staff to the health service. The hon. Gentleman will recognise, if he is fair, that since 1979 the number of nurses in the health service has increased substantially, as has their pay—by about one quarter in real terms. I confess that I have not read the report to which he refers, but I will do so and respond to the points that he made.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the objectives of health service reform is to encourage greater public involvement and interest? In relation to the reform of local health councils, is my hon. Friend satisfied that in large areas such as Grampian there will be adequate representation of both rural and urban interests? Even rural interests can be very disparate. Will he re-examine local health council reorganisation to ensure that it will provide genuine local involvement?

Mr. Forsyth: My view, which is shared by Opposition spokesmen, is that in general it will be better to have one health council per health board, with the resources to operate as a strong organisation and on an equal footing. I shall be answering today a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) about the possibility, as suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), of having more than one health council per board.
There is nothing to prevent boards from proposing schemes which involve more than one health council, although our preference is for only one such council.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I was right. Withdraw the circular.

Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) will allow me to answer my right hon. Friend's question, he may then catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
Our preference is for health councils that are strong enough to represent the voice of the consumer effectively, but health boards may suggest schemes that provide for more than one health council, and they will be considered on their merits.

Mr. Galbraith: When the Minister next meets the chairmen of the health boards, will he discuss with the chairman of Greater Glasgow health board the continuing public utterances of his general manager, who only yesterday said that the national health service in Glasgow is "second class"? That same general manager recently issued a warning to his staff that if any of them publicly criticise the NHS in Glasgow, they will be summarily dismissed. In that, he included comments to Members of

Parliament. Yet only yesterday, in the surroundings of the luxurious Gleneagles hotel, the same general manager deprecated the Greater Glasgow health board and its services, for which he personally is responsible. Why do we have such double standards, whereby the general manager can criticise the health service but the rest of the staff cannot? If the general manager can criticise, so can the rest of the staff.

Mr. Forsyth: It is the general manager's job to identify deficiencies in the health service and to put them right. I pay tribute to what Laurence Peterken has done in the health service. In Greater Glasgow health board, Lennox Castle, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, was identified as a hospital in need of improvement by the general manager, and it has been transformed. In that speech, Lawrence Peterken was saying that it was no part of the business of the health service to continue with inadequate Victorian buildings and that we wanted an efficient service providing the highest standards of care. That is the Government's belief. Only a fool would argue that there are no problems in the health service. There are problems. The Government are the first to have tackled them for a very long time and have delivered a higher standard of patient care.

Cammell Laird (Sale)

Mr. Frank Field: I seek to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing an urgent and specific matter which should have immediate attention, namely,
the proposed sale of Cammell Laird shipbuilders.
The matter is immediate because the proposed sale was announced this morning, and it is urgent because 2,000 jobs are at stake, and Birkenhead is already a black spot in the unemployment league table. If the closure takes place and a sale is not forthcoming, we shall be pushed towards the top end of that league table.
Moreover, it is also urgent because Cammell Laird is the very heart of Birkenhead and it is difficult to conceive of the town without its shipyard. The matter is urgent because Cammell Laird provides one of the great skill centres of Merseyside and if this country is to have an industrial future in the next century, it is important that those qualities are not squandered lightly.
The matter is also urgent because I wish the House to have the opportunity to show that it understands the worries, doubts and anxieties that my constituents in Birkenhead as well as people throughout Merseyside will feel today.
The matter is urgent because we wish to give the Government the opportunity to explain to the House what measures they propose to take to ensure that the sale is a success.
Lastly, the matter is urgent because, if there is no sale, this great shipyard will be closed.
While I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to stress the positive side of Cammell Laird to a wider audience, I believe that it is only in a full-scale debate that I and the House could do justice to what is now on offer and on sale. I want the House to take a resolution that it will not lightly allow that asset, those skills, those people and the dignity that they have shown through the years to be cast on to the unemployment scrap heap. For all those reasons, and not merely one of them, I seek to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the proposed sale of Cammell Laird shipbuilders.
I, too, listened to the news at lunchtime and I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said about this important matter. However, as he knows, under Standing Order No. 20. I have to announce my decision without giving my reasons to the House. I have to decide whether his application comes within the Standing Order and whether a debate should take precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow.
I regret that, in this case, the matter which he has raised does not meet those requirements and I cannot today submit his application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In today's vote bundle, my name appears in error against various early-day motions, including early-day motion 1398. I have received an apology from the Table Office. It intends to include a correction in tomorrow's corrigenda. My concern, and what I believe is a matter for you, is that early-day motions are read by people outside the House and are taken to be an accurate reflection of the views of those hon. Members who sign them. I am most concerned that my name should have been added to those motions. I very much hope that something can be done to improve the mechanism. I am particularly concerned about early-day motion 1398, because it is about Israel and the middle east. I believe that those who signed that early-day motion did so either because they are naive or because they are anti-semitic.

Mr. Speaker: I regret the mistake that was made. It may have arisen because of the number of hon. Members who bear the same name. However, the hon. Gentleman has put the matter right and that is probably the best way to deal with it.

Mr. David Winnick: On this point, and related matters, Mr. Speaker, although I know that you are not responsible for statements, you will know that the Foreign Secretary's visit to the middle east has produced a good deal of controversy on both sides of the House. I am wondering whether there is any way in which hon. Members can ensure that, when the Foreign Secretary returns to this country, there will be a statement. There is deep concern over what is happening in the middle east. Although the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) made derogatory references to a motion which I have not myself signed, that does not alter the fact that there is deep concern in the House over the killing of the 21 Palestinians.

Mr. Speaker: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about that, as I think the whole House does, but he will have heard the Leader of the House's statement on Monday that he will take this matter into consideration.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to prolong this, but I wonder whether you could clarify the exact situation relating to Standing Order No. 20. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) asked for your leave to adjourn the House on a matter which for his constituency is, without a shadow of doubt, of cardinal and critical importance. In circumstances such as that, which affect Birkenhead and which, in other circumstances, might affect my own constituency, will you clarify for me exactly what scale and magnitude of disaster there has to be before an Adjournment debate can be granted on what is, for an ordinary Member of Parliament, a really desperate state of affairs?

Mr. Speaker: It is a friendly act by the hon. Member, but he will have heard me say that I am enjoined not to give my reasons to the House. However, I imagine that there are those outside the House who will be as interested as the hon. Member in what the criteria are. I have to take into consideration other opportunities that may arise and


whether the matter is so urgent that it should take precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. These are very difficult decisions for the Chair. I hope that, as I said to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the matter will be raised on another occasion.

BILL PRESENTED

HOMEWORKERS' RIGHTS

Mr. Keith Vaz, supported by Ms. Clare Short, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. David Hinchliffe and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, presented a Bill to extend to homeworkers certain rights afforded to employees by enactments relating to health and safety, employment protection and finance; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Tuesday 23 October and to be printed. [Bill 201.]

Orders of the Day — Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [16 October] on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in Standing Committee), That the clause (Supervised attendance orders as alternatives to imprisonment on fine default) be read a Second time.

'.—(1) A court may make a supervised attendance order in the circumstances specified in subsection (3) below.

(2) A supervised attendance order is an order made by a court with the consent of an offender requiring him—

(a) to attend a place of supervision for such time, being 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 hours, as is specified in the order; and
(b) during that time, to carry out such instructions as may be given to him by the supervising officer.

(3) The circumstances are where—

(a) the offender is of or over 16 years of age; and
(b) having been convicted of an offence, he has had imposed on him a fine which (or any part or instalment of which) he has failed to pay and either of the following sub-paragraphs applies—

(i) the court, prior to the commencement of this section, has imposed on him a period of imprisonment under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 407 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (power of court, when imposing a fine, to impose also imprisonment on default) but he has not served any of that period of imprisonment;
(ii) the court, but for this section, would also have imposed on him a period of imprisonment under that paragraph or paragraph (b) of that subsection (power of court to impose imprisonment when a person fails to pay a fine or any part or instalment thereof); and

(c) the court considers a supervised attendance order more appropriate than the serving of or, as the case may be, imposition of such a period of imprisonment.

(4) Where, in respect of an offender, a court makes a supervised attendance order in circumstances where sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (b) of subsection (3) above applies, the making of that order shall have the effect of discharging the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the offender.

(5) Schedule (Supervised attendance orders: further provisions) to this Act has effect for the purpose of making further and qualifying provision as to supervised attendance orders.

(6) In this section—
local authority" means a regional or islands council;
place of supervision" means such place as may be determined for the purposes of a supervised attendance order by the supervising officer; and
supervising officer", in relation to a supervised attendance order, means a person appointed or assigned under Schedule (Supervised attendance orders: further provisions) to this Act by the local authority whose area includes the locality in which the offender resides or will be residing when the order comes into force.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I was going to say that I was in full flight—but perhaps that is a little grandiloquent, in view of what was happening at 10 o'clock last night—when these proceedings were brought


to a close. However, I was certainly addressing the House, and I now rise with a certain feeling of nostalgia, because this is the last time that I shall start a session on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, which to me seems like an old friend. I cannot remember any other Bill to which the Opposition have made more changes or on which they have made more political progress. I doubt whether the Minister's memories of it will be quite so happy, but there we are.
The proposal that supervised attendance orders should be made is of real importance. As I explained last night, the new clause came as a surprise to me. I had not expected it, but I should be misleading the House if I were to suggest that I oppose it in principle.
I have some doubts—this is the point I had reached yesterday—about the basis of the Minister's argument. He explained that because, under clause 51(3), community service orders can be imposed only where the only genuine alternative would be a prison sentence, we will not reach the position that has commonly existed whereby community service orders were imposed in place of a large fine. With the new narrow interpretation of when it is appropriate to have a community service order, the number of large fines will increase, and therefore it is assumed that the number of non-payers will increase. As a result, there has to be some alternative to imprisonment for non-payment to stop our prisons being choked and clogged as they have been in the past.
I should have been happier if the Minister had said that the pressure—perhaps not spectacular pressure but in my case nagging pressure going back to the Criminal Justice Bill in 1981—to see whether there could be an alternative to imprisonment for non-payment of fines had been successful and was being adopted on its merits. The argument about clause 51(3) is esoteric and doubtful. After all, a high fine does not necessarily lead to high non-payment because, presumably, the instalments are set according to the payer's means. If the court is doing its business, there should be no greater risk of non-payment and the penalties that follow than for any other financial responsibility.
I take the view that supervised attendance orders as an alternative to imprisonment might be more appropriate for those who have failed to pay small fines. It is offensive and ridiculous for people who may have failed to pay a fine of £20 or £30 to find themselves doing seven or 14 days in prison to the disadvantage of the prison system. I am not impressed by the Minister's argument, but the reform he is introducing is useful in a modest way.
I have already said that I have argued for and still believe in the abolition of imprisonment as a punishment for non-payment of fines. I have done so for the past decade in this place. I was going to make a graceful reference to the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) but, unusually, he is not in his place during a debate on this Bill. During the proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill in 1981, he gave me very strong support but expressed a doubt because he thought that there had to be an alternative penalty to just debt collection and diligence. We are now providing that. The Government have suddenly found that it is practical to do something in this way, and we should be thankful for that.
I want to ask one or two questions which I am sure the Minister will be able to answer. I recognise that the cost is to be fully reimbursed. As I understand it, in the year ending 31 March 1989, local authorities spent £3·2 million on community service orders, at an average cost per order—according to a parliamentary question—of £920. In that year, there were 3,492 orders. I asked a further parliamentary question on 11 June and was told that the total number of orders made in 1989 was not under 3,500 but had increased in that short time to 4,190. In other words, the number of community service orders is on a steeply rising curve. Obviously, that raises questions about the Government's expectations for the number of supervised attendance orders that will be made and the cost that that will place on the Exchequer.
The Minister must not get me wrong: I believe that the cost should be met 100 per cent. I have a letter from Professor Fred Edwards, the director of the Strathclyde regional work and social department. He is talking about an agreement whereby local authorities had to meet agreed standards for the quality and quantity of the work—that is, of community service orders—before receiving increased funding. Clearly an incentive was being built in to raise standards in order to attract increased funding. I assume that the same system will apply here. Perhaps the Minister will say a word about that.
It is important that the Minister comments on the form of supervision—this point has been made by my hon. Friend the experienced Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who knows much about the social work world—and on how attendance sessions will be organised. We are told that they will be for between 10 and 60 hours, so, as an initial response to someone's conviction for a criminal offence, they will be shorter than community service orders. Of the 4,190 community service orders made in 1989, only 802 fell below 100 hours. I presume that some of the new supervised attendance orders will be as low as 10 or 20 hours, so clearly they will raise different practical problems.
I am not clear whether supervised attendance orders will be administered on a different basis from community service orders or whether people on attendance orders will mix and share activities with those performing community service. It may be a matter for the discretion of the local authority, but perhaps the Minister will say a word or two about that.
I notice that the briefing distributed by the Minister says that activities will be "provided in modular form". I am not clear what he means by that, but no doubt he will be able to wax earnest and learned on modular forms in supervised attendance orders.
Whom did the Minister consult? I have tried to find out from Strathclyde regional council—my regional council and social work authority—whether it was consulted before this innovation was introduced. I do not have a clear picture, but my impression is that, if there was consultation, it was cursory in the extreme, which suggests that it was introduced hurriedly. Was the Sheriffs Association consulted? Sheriffs will be involved in deciding supervised attendance orders. If it was consulted, what was its reaction and did it support the proposal?
Having asked these questions, I conclude briskly by making it clear that I welcome the proposal, so far as it goes. The prison system has been handicapped by the number of receptions of prisoners who were not sentenced to a custodial term but who ended up in prison because


they failed to meet a monetary penalty. The figures for receptions are spectacular. In 1988, the last figures available to me and excluding remand prisoners, who would be a distorting factor, the number of admissions for default of payment of fines was 9,680, which is 47·1 per cent. of total admissions to the Scottish prison system.
That is a startling figure, but it probably will not startle many of my colleagues, because it is familiar to anyone who takes a passing interest in the prison system. I am aware that it is only just over 6 per cent. of the daily prison population, but the clogging of the system, the problems of reception, of administration and of processing the entry of a prisoner only for him or her to be discharged perhaps two or three weeks later causes enormous destruction to the proper work of the prison system.
I am concerned that the way in which the Minister presented this proposal was that its purpose is to stop the problem getting worse. He has argued that, because of the changes in the initial use of CSOs, which will lead to an increase in large fines, if we do nothing the number of receptions for non-payment, and the pressure on the prison system, will increase. I hope that he can be more positive. I hope that supervised attendance orders will have an impact that does not just stop the problem worsening but improves it. I hope that, after two or three years of experience, we might be in a position to say that that 47 per cent. figure of receptions for non-payment of fines had significantly decreased.
If the system works well, courts could be encouraged—I know that courts take individual decisions in individual cases—to use this alternative and to rid the prison system of at least a proportion of people, not just at the top of the fine scale but at the bottom end of this sad band of people who find themselves in prison for quite the wrong reason, to their distress, to the concern of their families and to the expense of the state. I am afraid that those people make it more difficult for the prison system to deal with those who, for reasons of public safety, must be imprisoned. It is a modest reform, but I hope that it is the start of better things.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The Bill has many aspects. We are dealing now with a major issue in a piecemeal fashion. That has been one of the features of this Bill. The imposition and collection of fines are major issues, meriting a major inquiry to see where the problem really lies. I know from my mailbag and experience that it is not popular to say that a fine should relate more to the offender's ability to pay than to the crime committed. For many years in the Scottish courts, the fine imposed has related to the offence, not to the offender's ability to pay.
Some years ago, I went to Sweden to study the Swedish penal system. If there was one aspect that impressed me, it was the fact that, throughout my period there, not one person was imprisoned for failure to pay a fine. The reason is simple. In Scotland, a fair amount of research is carried out into an offender's background before the court sentences him or her to a first custodial sentence. In Sweden, extensive research is carried out into an offender's ability to pay a fine. Before a case comes to court, the presiding judge or magistrate knows exactly what the person can pay should he be found guilty and a fine be imposed. Payment is based on earnings and other aspects.
Having taken the trouble to investigate an offender's ability to pay, the Swedish authorities claim the right to collect the fine—a system which I favour. In Sweden, there

are no supervised attendance orders or alternatives to paying a fine. Research is carried out and the fine relates not to the offence but to the person's ability to pay.
I make no criticism of the Government or of the Minister, because successive Governments—I take my share of the responsibility—have paid little attention to this aspect of court work. It makes no sense to fine a person £1,000 if he or she is on income support or to impose a fine that is way beyond a person's ability to pay, in the certain knowledge that the fine will not be paid. It would be more honest of a court to impose a prison sentence, because that would be the outcome in any case.
It is time that we all agreed that there must be a major inquiry into the operation of fines in the Scottish judicial system. In many ways, Scotland has led in terms of judicial and law reform, and we should all be proud of that. I am convinced that we can do the same in terms of the levying and payment of fines.
I cannot give the new clause a wholehearted welcome, because I regard it as a piecemeal approach to a major problem. Instead, I want to give it a qualified welcome and to ask the Minister one or two questions about it.
At present, when an offender fails to pay his fine and is sent to prison, he can buy himself out before his sentence is complete. There is a scale governing the length of the custodial sentence that a fine defaulter should serve, and that is determined against the background of the level of the fine. A fine defaulter who has failed to pay a £1,000 fine will serve longer than a defaulter who has failed to pay a £50 fine.
The Minister knows from experience that it is quite common for a fine defaulter to be imprisoned on Monday and for someone to go along and pay his fine on Tuesday morning. All the paperwork surrounding his reception in prison then has to be gone through again and his release arranged. Will a fine defaulter now be able to buy himself out of a supervised attendance order? Suppose that the order requires him to attend for the maximum period of 60 hours. Will he be able to buy himself out when he has completed 20 hours, and what will be the scale used? Clearly, we are not talking about the payment of the total fine, because the offender will have served a third of the supervised attendance hours specified in the order. The Minister must have some sort of scale in mind.
Who will decide whether the offender may buy himself out of the arrangement? How will we decide whether a fine defaulter should be asked to attend for 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 hours? Under the present arrangements under which a fine defaulter is sent to prison, scales are laid down. I may have missed the reference to such a scale in the new clause; that is not beyond me, I can assure the House. Is a scale to be specified for the proposed scheme? Unless we know what we are doing—unless social workers know in detail whether a fine defaulter can buy himself out—it seems inadvisable to proceed. We should not introduce the scheme until all the details have been put in place. If we introduce the scheme against a background of confusion, matters can only get worse and we shall find that we have added to the problem that we sought to solve.
My welcome for the new clause is qualified because, in my view, we are merely tinkering at the edges of what is now a major problem. We ought to consider other approaches. I urge the Minister to consider the establishment as soon as possible of a commission of inquiry to look into the whole question of levying fines according to the seriousness of the crime of which the


offender has been found guilty rather than according to his ability to pay. If I were asked to choose, I would choose a system that related to the offender's ability to pay because if we had such a system, many of the other issues that we are discussing today would disappear.

4 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I promise to be brief, Mr. Speaker. Before asking the Minister a couple of questions about the new clause, may I, too, give it my qualified support? I recently attended a session of the sheriff court in Edinburgh when it was hearing a number of what are colloquially known as "means court" cases. One young man was sent down for 30 days for his failure to pay a fine, much to his deep dismay. Other young men—those appearing were mainly men—suffered the same fate. I should add that I was in good company—I was with Michael Clancy of the Scottish Law Society.
I thought that it was all a disgraceful waste and wondered why we should put that young man's family through such distress. He was bundled down below within 20 seconds of the sheriff making his nonchalant decision. Therefore, although I give the new clause some support, the Minister and his officials should further consider its implications.
I refer the Minister to subsection (2)(b), which states that the offender will
carry out such instructions as may be given to him by the supervising officer.
I believe that I am right in saying that, when answering an intervention from me yesterday evening, the Minister said that the supervising officer need not necessarily be a social worker. I am a little concerned about that. The Minister will recall that, in the explanatory memorandum that he sent to members of the Committee, he stated that, among others, we are referring to ex-drug abusers—those who have fallen by the wayside because of the misuse or abuse of drugs—and others. People who have unfortunately become addicted to drugs need to be supervised and need someone in the team who is highly experienced in such matters. As that rule must be applied to other offenders, I should like to hear the Minister offer a word or two about the non-social work supervisors, because I believe that he is straying into queer territory.
Similarly, the Minister needs to consult more comprehensively—or his officials need to consult more comprehensively—social work departments and voluntary associations whose main concern is the rehabilitation of offenders and those who have transgressed in terms of non-payment of minor fines. I should like to hear the Minister say something positive in response to my reservations on subsection (2)(b).

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am as concerned as my colleagues about some of the things that go on in the minor courts. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friends who have expressed some shock about the way in which young people are simply sent to prison casually and without much consideration.
I should like to ask the Minister a rather unpleasant question. I am not anti-lawyer, but I have a particular case

in mind, which is known to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) because it concerns Bo'ness, which I represented for many years.
Will the Minister make it an obligation on sheriffs and temporary sheriffs not to take any alcohol during the lunch hour? I once brought a case to the attention of the House, in which a police career was ruined—that of Sergeant Jamieson—by a temporary sheriff who had taken drink during the lunch hour and then took decisions that could not be undone. That case has lived with me and I suspect that the same has happened on a number of other occasions.
As we are on the subject, it might be a good idea if those on the bench took no alcoholic drink during their lunch hours.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I have been encouraged to participate in the debate only following the remarks of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). For the record, I want to make it clear that I understand that there was an investigation by the then sheriff principal of the circumstances surrounding the case, and that no fault was found to attach to the sheriff concerned. The hon. Member for Linlithgow is perfectly entitled to raise the issue, but it is only right to put the record straight.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman deny that the temporary sheriff concerned had taken alcohol during his lunch hour before coming to his decision?

Mr. Campbell: That is not within my knowledge—

Mr. Dalyell: It is within mine.

Mr. Campbell: What is within my knowledge is that an investigation was effected and no fault was found to attach to the sheriff.

Mr. Dalyell: Some of us thought it unfortunate that the sheriff concerned came to the decision that he did, and that the investigation was a matter of lawyers all getting together.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I believe that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) had an Adjournment debate on this subject some years ago—

Mr. Dalyell: Yes.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It would be rash of me to go into the case without researching all the facts, but I have heard what the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) has said, so I suspect that there are two sides to the issue, of which we have heard only one this afternoon. I shall look into the case.
I warmly welcome what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said—

Mr. Dalyell: Airline pilots, drivers, and many other people in skilled occupations are not supposed to drink alcohol in the course of their work, so is it unreasonable to suggest that those who take decisions affecting people's lives should do the same? Many other people are not supposed to drink at work; should not the same apply to those on the bench?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I approach the subject with some caution. If the hon. Gentleman were to table a motion suggesting that hon. Members should not take


drinks before they participated in debates, I suspect that there would follow a heated debate in which different views would be expressed. I shall look at the facts of the case and come back to the hon. Gentleman in due course. It would certainly be wrong of me to give a judgment off the top of my head—

Mr. Dalyell: In my opinion, those who are going to take part in debates on the Floor of the House should not take alcohol before doing so.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I applaud the hon. Gentleman's high standards. All I am saying is that he would find this a contentious subject if he were to table a motion banning Members from drinking at lunchtime—

An Hon. Member: Or Speakers.

Mr. Speaker: Just for the record, I never do.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to confirm that. I most certainly do not drink if I am about to speak in the House of Commons.
The hon. Member for Garscadden made a most positive speech; I agree with everyting that he said. The hon. Gentleman asked who was consulted. The Sheriffs Association, local authorities and other interested bodies were consulted. A letter was sent out in April and all the responses were in support of supervised attendance orders for fine default. The bodies consulted included the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Directors of Social Work in Scotland, the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland), the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. I am glad to say that they strongly supported the measure.
The hon. Member for Garscadden asked about modular form and the kind of supervision. The programmes will be organised in standard units. For example, there will be two-hour sessions on drug and alcohol misuse and two-hour blocks of unpaid work with groups of from eight to 12 offenders. There might be some sharing with people who do group placements on community service orders, but where practicable the two groups will be kept separate.
I was asked about national standards for supervised attendance orders. Standards will be drawn up in consultation with local authorities and others and funding will be conditional on standards being met. I was asked about the details. Guidelines will be drawn up and, as I said yesterday, a consultative group will be formed to look into these matters. It will include representation from local authorities, the judiciary and other relevant interests.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) asked whether fine defaulters could buy themselves out of supervised attendance orders. I am glad to confirm that the answer is no. Once the offender consents to a supervised attendance order, he will have to complete it. The hon. Gentleman also said that fines should be related to the means to pay and not to the severity of the offence.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The Minister says that an offender will not be able to buy himself out of a supervised attendance order. What sanction is available if the offender fails to complete the allocated number of hours? Is the sanction imprisonment? If that is the case, we are caught in the situation from which we are trying to escape.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. What happens is broadly similar to that which occurs after non-co-operation with a community service order. I hope that that will not happen in more than a few cases. I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that section 395(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975—the hon. Gentleman may have played a part in getting that Act on to the statute book—states:
A court … in determining the amount of any fine to be imposed on an offender shall take into consideration, amongst other things, the means of the offender so far as known to the court.
The High Court has rightly emphasised that in appeal cases. In this connection, I agree with the hon. Member for Garscadden.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who has left the Chamber for a moment, said that there was a need to do more work on implementation. I agree. Detailed guidance for social work authorities on the operation will be drawn up in consultation with interested parties before the provisions of the Bill come into force. The hon. Gentleman also asked about non-social work supervisors. Their use is well precedented in bringing forward community service schemes. They always have access to support and advice from professional social workers.
Like the hon. Member for Garscadden, I think that it is important for there to be a range of community disposals in which the people of Scotland can have confidence. The hon. Gentleman asked me about this late last night, when he asked me to speak about probation. Fewer than 3 per cent. of offenders appearing before the High and sheriff courts are placed on probation. While probation is not suitable for all offenders, it has the potential to make a much bigger contribution. It has been somewhat neglected, so we saw 100 per cent. funding as important, not just for community service orders and supervised attendance orders, but also for probation.
When we gave 100 per cent. central funding for community service orders, it resulted in a 25 per cent. increase in the number of such orders in the first year. Obviously, that is an important consideration.

Mr. Dalyell: Why does the Minister think that the level of provision has fallen back like this? When I was first elected to the House, there was a tough probation officer in West Lothian who was a father figure and who sorted out a number of boys by using common sense and know-how. That sort of thing does not happen to such an extent these days, unfortunately.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Our information is that local authority social workers are often reluctant to recommend this course of action in social inquiry reports, possibly because of the work load consequences for them, so 100 per cent. funding will assist.
Clause 51 makes other necessary changes to improve the effectiveness of the services. It ensures that community service orders are reserved for those offenders who would otherwise have been imprisoned. As the hon. Member for Garscadden said, the result would be to increase the number of fines. We believed it to be essential to do something about the problem of fine defaulters, or the Bill would inadvertently result in more people going to prison


than was the intention of any hon. Member who served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, or the House as a whole.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Like others, I have been critical of the Minister from time to time during the passage of the Bill, but I warmly welcome what he has just said. It betokens an enlightened and sensible attitude from the Department. I echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The effectiveness of the probation service before the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 was a watchword in penal circles. If we can, by a more generous allocation of funds, return to probation officers the stature that they enjoyed and the successes that they were able to achieve, that would be a good thing for many young people in Scotland.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has just said. I think that this move will also be welcomed by prison officers, who have the duty of looking after those who are in prison because of serious crimes. If a young person who has committed a minor misdemeanour and finds difficulty in paying his fines—there are hundreds of such cases—can be dealt with in this way, that will help with the administration of the prisons.

Mr. Dewar: It seems to me that the drive of some of these comments is a move away from generic social workers and back to specialisation in the social work department. I should be interested to hear whether the Minister embraces that proposition.
I wish to clarify what the Minister has just said, because it is important. The thrust of his central argument is that there will be large fines, leading to fine defaults and the use of the new supervised attendance order, which is aimed at preventing a specific increase. Do the Government hope that the supervised attendance order will be widely used, perhaps for small defaulters—people who are fined under £50 but who have not paid, perhaps because they are on benefit or have a number of social pressures on them—who will benefit from the flexibility that this allows, with the result that there is a reduction? In other words, I want to know what part the Minister thinks that a supervised attendance order will play, and whether it will largely replace, over time, the imprisonment factor.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My view is that it will be seen as a lesser form of community service, shorter in scope and easier to carry out by those concerned. A range of disposals is important. The 100 per cent. funding for the probation community service order and supervised attendance orders will give the court a choice, which will depend on the seriousness of the case.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow also asked about the role of the social workers. Social workers should be deployed where their special skills can be used to the best effect. They will be responsible for the planning of supervised attendance orders and for generally overseeing their operation. The day-to-day supervision can be provided more cheaply by other local authority staff, and many of the components of the programme could be brought in from other providers, such as voluntary organisations. For example, local councils on alcohol could provide speakers on alcohol abuse.
It is important to distinguish supervised attendance from probation. In probation, the focus is on the individual offender and his offending behaviour. A probation order combines control of the offender with assistance to help him to solve his personal problems and stay out of trouble. Probation calls for the special skills of the social worker in one-to-one counselling and small group interaction. In contrast, supervised attandance will not be concerned with tailoring the approach to the individual offender. In essence, it is a fine on the offender's free time, and the supervisor's main function will be to ensure punctual attendance and good behaviour of a group of about eight to 12 offenders, whose activities will follow a standardised modular pattern.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow may have missed my earlier comment. In answer to his point, I can say that the Government do not believe that it would be a sensible use of scarce social work skills to have professional staff solely carry out this work. They will be much better employed in doing the things that only they can do—providing supervision and help to offenders on probation and parole, and preparing social inquiry reports to enable the courts to choose the most appropriate disposal.

Dr. Godman: I sincerely apologise to the Minister for the fact that I have been racing around for the past few minutes and therefore missed his comments.
It is essential that any activity-centred scheme is realistic and constructive, so that it helps such people to come back into the community. I know that ex-drug users at some centres spend many empty hours that could be more usefully spent preparing them to find jobs. That is why it is essential that the supervision is carried out by highly qualified and trained people.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but there are degrees of specialisation within the social work department. As the hon. Member for Garscadden suggested, we want to encourage greater specialisation in working with offenders.
In response to the point raised by the hon. Member for Garscadden, I confirm that supervised attendance orders will be widely used for defaulters of small fines. They will be highly appropriate in that category. The provision fulfils an important need.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I am carefully following the Minister's arguments, and I agree that there is a need for qualified, trained social workers to be involved. Will there be additional recruitment into social work, and will additional funding be made available to colleges and universities involved in the training of social workers? The necessary resources and back-up facilities must be provided, because social work departments are already under severe strain.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is obviously a matter for the consultative group, which will have representation from local authorities, the judiciary and other relevant, interested bodies. We shall keep closely in touch with the position.
We believe that the new penalty will be of great value in helping to reduce the pressure on the prisons, while continuing to provide a disincentive to fine default and


enabling those who do default to make amends for their offence through loss of their free time, disciplined attendance and constructive activity.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 21

EFFECT OF MENTAL INCAPACITY ON POWERS OF ATTORNEY ETC.

'.—(1) Any rule of law by which a factory and commission or power of attorney ceases to have effect in the event of the mental incapacity of the granter shall not apply to a factory and commission or power of attorney granted on or after the date on which this section comes into force.

(2) In subsection (1) above, "mental incapacity" means, in relation to a person, that he is incapable of managing his property and affairs by reason of mental disorder within the meaning of section 1 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 8—Further provisions as to judicial factors—
'.—After section 35 of the Judicial Factors Act 1849 there shall be inserted the following section—
35A—(l) Subject to subsection (5) below, where an individual grants a factory and commission or power of attorney which includes a declaration of intention to which this section applies, the factor and commission or power of attorney shall not be revoked only by reason of any subsequent mental incapacity.
(2) This section applies to a declaration of intention which is in the prescribed form and includes a statement that the granter intends the factory or commission or power of attorney to continue despite any subsequent mental incapacity of his, provided that—

(a) the factory and commission or power of attorney has been subscribed by the granter and attested by two witnesses before a notary public and has been registered in the Books of Council and Session or in the books of the appropriate sheriff court of the sheriffdom in which the granter habitually resides;
(b) the notary public has made a statement in the prescribed form that the granter has read or has had read to him prescribed information explaining the effect of the declaration; and
(c) the granter has sworn or affirmed before the notary public that the declaration was made freely and without coercion of any kind.

(3) In subsections (1) and (2) above 'mental incapacity' means, in relation to a granter, that he is incapable of managing his property and affairs by reason of mental disorder.
(4) 'Mental disorder' has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984.
(5) A factory and commission or power of attorney which includes a declaration of intention to which this section applied shall be revoked by appointment of a curator bonis or tutor-dative and may be revoked on application to the court by any person having an interest.
(6) In this section—

(a) 'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State:
(b) 'the court' means the Court of Session or the sheriff court".'.

Government amendment No. 108.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: New clause 8 in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and new clause 21 have similar aims. They seek to overcome a problem faced by an increasing number of families where a relative, who has granted a factory and commission or power of attorney, subsequently becomes mentally incapacitated. In Scotland, unlike England and Wales, a power of attorney terminates if the granter becomes mentally incapacitated. A curator bonis could be appointed, but in view of the costs involved, a curatory is not usually considered worthwhile except for fairly large estates.
New clause 8 mirrors for Scotland provisions in the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 which apply to England and Wales, but the simpler provision in new clause 21 will achieve the same end. It will ensure that, after the commencement of the provision, any existing rule of law by which a factory and commission or power of attorney ceases to have effect in the event of the mental incapacity of the donor shall have no effect. Mental incapacity is as defined in section 1 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984.
The provisions will apply only to powers of attorney granted after the provision comes into force. It does not seek to alter the effect of powers of attorney already granted, nor does it revive powers of attorney that have lapsed because of the mental incapacity of the donor. In the former case, the granter can revoke any existing power and grant a new power.
Amendment No. 108 seeks to ensure that the new clause will come into effect as soon as possible—that is, on commencement of the Act. New clause 21 is sufficient to achieve the objectives sought by the hon. Member for Garscadden. It has been deliberately kept simple, since the Law Commission intends to publish later this year a discussion paper on powers of attorney and other matters relating to guardianship of the adult incapacitated.
It may turn out that, on the basis of the commission's consultations, and a more wide ranging consideration of the matter, a different solution to the problem may emerge. Accordingly, I ask hon. Members to recognise that it may be necessary to return to the subject when the commission issues its report and recommendations. In bringing forward the new clause we recognise that a social need exists which should be met now, and new clause 21 is sufficient to achieve that end. Therefore, I ask hon. Members to accept new clause 21 and amendment No. 108, and I ask the hon. Member for Garscadden to withdraw new clause 8.

Mr. Dewar: I have no difficulty about falling in with the Minister's request on this occasion. I do not always think that a shorter clause is a better clause but there is no doubt that we are attempting to obtain the same result and I am perfectly happy to take the Minister's word that his new clause encompasses the meaning more conveniently. It is an admirable means of curing a difficulty, which, as he fairly said, has faced many families who unfortunately, have had to deal with the situation where a close relative no longer has the faculties to look after his or her affairs. It is right in those situations—in a sense anticipated, because a power of attorney has been granted—that the power of attorney should run on and allow the proper administration of that person's affairs. I am glad that the Minister has acted to achieve that. I welcome his new clause, and will not press new clause 8.

Dr. Godman: I, too, welcome new clause 21. Will the Law Commission, as part of its brief, comment upon the code of practice which was produced under the auspices of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984? I ask that question because I am fairly confident that neither the House nor the Scottish Grand Committee has ever had the opportunity of scrutinising the workings of that important Act.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The remit is for the Law Commission to consider later in the year matters relating to the guardianship of the adult incapacitated. In so far as the code relates to this, it would be perfectly competent for the Commission to comment on it as it so wished.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 24

EVIDENCE OF CHILDREN THROUGH TELEVISION LINK IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

'.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, where a child has been cited to give evidence in a trial, the court may, on an application being made to it, authorise the giving of evidence by the child by means of a live television link.

(2) The court may grant an application under subsection (1) above only on cause shown having regard in particular to—

(a) the possible effect on the child if required to give evidence, no such application having been granted; and
(b) whether it is likely that the child would be better able to give evidence if such application were granted.

(3) In considering whether to grant an application under subsection (1) above, the court may take into account, where appropriate, any of the following—

(a) the age and maturity of the child;
(b) the nature of the alleged offence;
(c) the nature of the evidence which the child is likely to be called on to give; and
(d) the relationship, if any, between the child and the accused.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following: Government new clauses 25 to 27.

New clause 1—Evidence of children on commission in criminal proceedings—
'.—(1) Notwithstanding section 32 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 and subject to section (Circumstances in which procedures may be authorised) of this Act, where a child has been cited to give evidence in a trial, whether under solemn or summary procedure, the court may, on an application being made to it at an appropriate time, appoint a commissioner to take the evidence of the child.
(2) The proceedings before a commissioner under this section shall be recorded by video recorder.
(3) The accused shall not be present in the room where the proceedings under this section are taking place except with the leave of the commissioner, but the accused, if not present, shall be entitled to watch and hear those proceedings by such other means as seem suitable to the commissioner.
(4) In subsection (1) above "at an appropriate time" means—

(a) in relation to solemn proceedings, at any time before the oath is administered to the jury;

(b) in relation to summary proceedings, at any time before the first witness is sworn, or
(c) in exceptional circumstances, in relation to either solemn or summary proceedings, during the course of the trial.'.

New clause 2—Use of screens in taking evidence of children in criminal proceedings—
'.—(1) Subject to section (Circumstances in which procedures may be authorised) of this Act, where a child has been cited to give evidence in a trial, whether under solemn or summary procedure, the court may, on an application being made to it, authorise the use of a screen to conceal the accused from the sight of the child, notwithstanding that such use of a screen is objected to by or on behalf of the accused.
(2) Where a screen is used in pursuance of this section, arrangements shall be made to ensure that the accused is able to watch and hear the child while the child is giving evidence.'.

New clause 3—Evidence of children through television link in criminal proceedings—
'.—Subject to section (Circumstances in which procedures may be authorised) of this Act, where a child has been cited to give evidence in a trial, whether under solemn or summary procedure, the court may, on an application being made to it, authorise the giving of evidence by the child by means of a live television link.'.

New clause 4—Circumstances in which procedures may be authorised—
'.—(1) The court may grant an application under sections (Evidence of children on commission in criminal proceedings), (Use of screens in taking evidence of children in criminal proceedings) or (Evidence of children through television link in criminal proceedings) of this Act only on cause shown having regard in particular to—

(a) the possible effect on the child if required to give evidence in open court; and
(b) whether it is likely that the child would be better able to give evidence if not required to do so in open court.

(2) In having regard to the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) above, the court may take into account, where appropriate, any of the following—

(a) the age and maturity of the child;
(b) the nature of the alleged offence;
(c) the nature of the evidence which the child is likely to be called on to give; and
(d) the relationship, if any, between the child and the accused.'.

Government amendment No. 127.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This is perhaps the most important issue before us this afternoon. The clauses concern the protection of children in criminal cases, about which there has been widespread concern, and it is right that they should be before us today. There has been considerable concern about criminal trials where child witnesses under stress have been unable to give their evidence properly. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) tabled a number of amendments in Committee, and made it clear that he wished to return to the matter on Report.
The discussion is centred on the use of a live television link arrangement, under which the child witness would be in a room separate from the court room and would give evidence through closed-circuit television. We have decided that the arrangement should be progressively introduced in Scotland. It is intended—subject to consultation with the judiciary—that appropriate equipment should be available initially in Edinburgh and Glasgow.
The arrangement is based on the recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission in its "Report on the evidence of Children and Other Potentially Vulnerable Witnesses", published earlier this year. The Commission believes that, in many cases, children will be able to give evidence in court by conventional means.
Live television links should be required in relatively few cases. Their use is accordingly to be at the discretion of the trial judge, according to the statutory criteria set out in the first Government amendment. It would of course reduce the expected benefits from the use of the live television link if the child witness still had to identify the accused in court in a face-to-face dock identification. Accordingly, a further Government amendment deals with evidential requirements.
There are also further provisions dealing with sheriff court jurisdiction and the transfer of sheriff court cases within a sheriffdom. The jurisdiction provision enables a case to be taken anywhere in a sheriffdom, and the transfer of a case within a sheriffdom will be allowed when an application for the use of a live television link has been approved. Without these transfer provisions, it would be difficult to operate the new procedure efficiently.
We have reached the view that we should not—at least, in the meantime—implement the Scottish Law Commission's recommendations with regard to a video—recorded pre-trial deposition procedure and a statutory provision relating to the use of screens. The deposition procedure would involve an examination of the child witness, ideally before the judge who was to preside at the trial. Much the same purpose will be served by a live television link. We have decided that it is appropriate to introduce the live television link procedure first, and monitor its operation carefully before considering other statutory measures.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister say why he thinks that he and his Department know better than the Law Commission? I thought that the Law Commission was rather convincing.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I would not say that I knew better than the Law Commission. I have discussed the matter in detail with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Garscadden is expressing scorn, but my hon. and learned Friend probably has more experience of criminal cases than any other Scottish Member of Parliament. He has considerable knowledge of the subject.

Mr. Dewar: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), as I have not done so yet.

Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) asked me, if the opportunity arose, to express his apologies for not being present, and to state clearly that he supports what the Government are doing and believes that it is right.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I thank my hon. Friend. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross told me the same.
The Government take the view they do because to adopt another arrangement could be prejudicial to the accused. I myself have been involved in a court case in which a child witness identified a boy as guilty of murder, but under cross-examination admitted that he had told a lie on the instructions of relatives. I have seen that happen. That case involved youths who had kicked another youth to death. If that child's claim had not been broken down under cross-examination, an innocent person could easily have been convicted of murder. As well as the protection of children, we must bear in mind the importance of fairness to the accused.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I cannot help making the observation that, if the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) now has power of attorney for the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), we may have to examine the capacity of the latter.
Taking the three new clauses together, I find it difficult to grasp the practicalities of defending an accused person in circumstances in which a television link has been allowed by the court, and the extent to which cross-examination of a child may be possible. If I read new clause 26 correctly, cross-examination of a child on the issue of identification may not be excluded by way of statute. Practical difficulties exist that remain to be explained.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In the case of a child who had been abused in one way or another, dock identification could be very upsetting and distressing for that child. We believe that a video link could provide an effective means of taking evidence. Identification might be made on some former occasion. One Glasgow police station has a one-way mirror that allows women who have been raped, for example, to identify their attackers without suffering immense additional distress.

Dr. Godman: I am confused by the Minister's use of the terms "closed-circuit television link" and "video link". I refer him to a comment that he made at the beginning of our debate yesterday afternoon:
I intend to accept the central point on video evidence. That does not include every aspect of new clause 1".—[Official Report, 16 October 1990; Vol. 177, c. 1060.]
Why has the Minister changed his mind?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I want to make it clear that I do accept the proposals for a video link, but the evidence goes further than that, and suggests that there is a risk that it could be prejudicial to the accused.
As to cross-examination, the television link would be continuous. The provision concerning identification would apply only where the court had granted an application for use of the television link procedure. Where a child gives evidence that he or she recalls having previously identified the person alleged to have committed the offence, the evidence of a third party of that identification would be admissible as evidence of such identification. There remains for determination by the court the sufficiency of that evidence—whether the Crown has sufficiently proved the identification. Accordingly, fairness to the accused would not be prejudiced.

Mr. Dalyell: This is a complex subject, and Ministers are certainly entitled to make decisions on the basis of their own experience. I personally would greatly value the views of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir


N. Fairbairn) on such a subject. Equally, the House is entitled to know in detail why the Government have overturned the Law Commission recommendation, especially since its Lord President, Lord Hope, is currently proposing a scheme.
Do the Government have the agreement, in their view, of the Lord President? Has he given advice to the effect that the Government, rather than the Law Commission, are correct? I do not want to make a party point, because none is to be made, but it is a matter of considerable importance to a number of our constituents. Again, I can think of a personal case in which I was tangentially involved on a constituency basis.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I genuinely do not think that the Lord President has been approached to ask whether he supports the Law Commission's view in opposition to any other point of view on this matter. He is certainly aware of the Government's proposals, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow will be aware.
The Scottish Law Commission in its report recorded a number of reservations expressed to it about the use of screens. The Scottish court is exploring technical aspects of the use of screens and we would wish to monitor the present use before reaching a concluded view as to the needs of the statutory provision on the line recommended by the Scottish Law Commission.
Undoubtedly hon. Members are aware of the welcome memorandum on guidance on child witnesses which was issued by the Lord Justice-General at the end of July. The purpose of the memorandum is to provide assistance to judges in the exercise of their discretionary powers to put a child at ease—for example, by removing wigs and gowns. The adoption of other measures recommended in the Lord Justice-General's memorandum can be expected to make a substantial contribution to reducing stress for child witnesses. We wish to know how wider use of such measures will help before we consider further statutory or other innovations.
Two other Government amendments provide necessary definitions and make necessary adjustments to the long title of the Bill. The Government amendments provide a coherent and practical set of provisions. We wish to respond quickly to the opportunity to legislate now to bring in closed circuit television for child witnesses.
The new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow are not workable as they stand, in the absence of a provision enabling cases to be transferred and doing away with dock identification. Accordingly, I invite the House to support the Government amendments.

Dr. Godman: I thank the Minister for responding as he did to my new clause 3. However, I wish to speak to new clause 1 which is also in my name. Incidentally, I shall not press new clause 3 as it was intended to elicit a comprehensive response from the Minister and I thank him for his positive response.
New clause 24 not only brings Scots law into line with English law in terms of section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, but is an improvement on that English legislation. I think that I am right in saying that there are now 22 English Crown courts with closed circuit television

and that there is a fair geographical spread throughout England of what has become known as "CCTV". There is some confusion between closed-circuit television and video recordings. The Minister was talking about closed circuit television.
My aim in new clause 1 is simple: to give added protection to children when they give evidence in criminal proceedings involving sex abuse or physical abuse.
In the past 10 months, two major reports on this deeply troubling matter have been published in England and Scotland. I refer to Judge Pigot's Home Office advisory group's report on video evidence published in September 1989 and to the 125th report of the Scottish Law Commission entitled, "Report on the evidence of Children and Other Potentially Vulnerable Witnesses" which was published about nine months ago.
In the context of new clauses 1, 2 and 4 and of the Minister's new clauses, English and Scottish legal systems have a good deal to learn from each other. I was much taken by the observations offered by Spencer and Flin in their book, "The Evidence of Children. The Law and the Psychology"—Spencer is a Cambridge fellow and Dr. Rhona Flin is a psychologist at the Robert Gordon's Institute in Aberdeen. In their book, published by Blackstone Press earlier this year, they said about evidence given by children:
It is now almost 400 years since James VI of Scotland became James I of England, and nearly 300 years since the Act of Union: yet little knowledge about the Scottish legal system seems to have spread south of the Border. In Cambridge University Library there has been a copy of Dickson's classic treatise on the law of evidence in Scotland since 1864, and when the first author consulted it in 1989, he found that every page remained uncut!
I believe that if the English were more familiar with our system of children's hearings, which was set up in 1971, they would establish something akin to that system in England. It is a matter of considerable regret to me that, despite a near consensus in the House, the Government have failed to use the Children Act 1989 as a step towards the creation of an informal system of courts south of the border. In that regard, England and Wales are some 20 years behind Scotland. However, in the matters dealt with by my new clauses Scotland lags behind England. The Minister is rectifying that to some extent in his new clauses.
In support of new clause 1 and the use of video-recorded interviews with children as evidence, I intend to quote from both the reports that I mentioned. I am disappointed by the Minister's comments on the use of such video-recorded interviews as evidence. I understand that such legislation, involving the use of such video-recorded interviews, will be introduced south of the border. If that is the case, we shall again be lagging behind in Scotland.
I confess that to draw up my new clause I plagiarised the draft Bill that was appended to the Scottish Law Commissioner's report. I make no apology for that, because, among other things, it has elicited a most heartening response on closed-circuit television from the Minister. I still hope to persuade the House on the need for a similar response to new clause 1. My aim is to lessen the appalling burden imposed on children, without harming the interests of the accused.
I think that the Pigot report may lead to new legislation south of the border. On page 69, it states:


We recommend that at trials on indictment for violent and sexual offences and offences of cruelty and neglect and at comparable trials in the juvenile courts"—
which is the English system—
video-recorded interviews with children under the age of 14 conducted by police officers, social workers or those whose duties include the investigation of crime or the protection of the welfare of children should be admissible as evidence. Where the offence charged is of a sexual nature this provision should extend to child witnesses under the age of 17".
That is a radical proposal, but I accept it wholeheartedly.
At page 18, paragraph 416, the Scottish Law Commission's report said:
On the whole matter we accordingly recommend: 10(a) where a child has been cited to give evidence in a criminal trial, whether under solemn or summary procedure, it should be competent, as an alternative to adducing the child as a witness in court, to take the evidence of that child on commission prior to the date of the trial or, exceptionally, during the course of the trial.
This excellent report goes on:
(b) the taking of evidence on commission should, so far as practicable, take place in a room which is congenial and non-threatening so that the child may feel at ease during the proceedings.
I heartily endorse that recommendation.
The video-recorded interviews to which I refer are far removed from precognitions under Scottish law. Precognition is
The preliminary examination of witnesses or persons likely to know about the facts of a case, in order to obtain, with a view to trial, a general knowledge of the available evidence; especially in criminal law, an examination by a procurator-fiscal of those who can give evidence regarding a crime or offence (in older practice conducted by or before a sheriff or other judge ordinary)".
That quotation is taken from "The Oxford English Dictionary", second edition, volume XI. "The Concise Scots Dictionary" simply states that precognition is
a statement made by a witness during this investigation.
Such precognitions are usually conducted by ex-police officers, but it is not unknown for others to carry out such work, even though they may have had no training. The video-recorded interviews provided for by my new clause 1 would have to be spontaneous and voluntary. They should certainly not be based on interrogation and they should not be conducted by over-zealous professionals. I recognise that there are major difficulties; they do not have to be pointed out to me by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), or by my hon. and old Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Precognitions have always caused difficulties for our courts.
I am reminded of Lord Justice Clerk Thomson's comment in Kerr v. H.M. Advocate, Scottish Law Times 1958, volumne 82. He said that
Precognosers as a whole appear to be gifted with a measure of optimism which no amount of disillusionment appears to damp.
As with precognitions, the interviews of children present problems because of their limited powers of conversation and their immaturity.
In the Butler-Sloss report the observation is offered that Not all members of the judiciary"—
this is the English judiciary—
are in favour of video recordings.
That comment, however, appears to be based on anecdotal evidence, perhaps obtained during conversations with fellow judges over a glass of sherry. No research evidence is offered in that report for the reservation concerning video-recorded interviews being used as depositions.
The commissioner to whom the Law Commission refers would need to be chosen carefully, perhaps initially from the ranks of reporters to the children's panels. I have every confidence in their integrity. My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden will readily agree with that comment, because he was employed for a short time as a reporter. Professionals of that kind could, in the early days, take on the role of commissioner in order to obtain such evidence. A young child is much better able to remember dreadful incidents shortly after the perpetrator has committed them rather than in a courtroom six, eight, 10 months, or even a year or 18 months later. That is why I say that video-recorded interviews should be used as evidence in such cases.
I regret that we are dealing with these important issues on Report. They are worthy of lengthy and tough-minded debate. There are cases under investigation in Scotland to which I cannot refer because they are sub judice. However, they have aroused a sense of horror and repugnance among all decent-minded people throughout the land, despite the conservative reservations of lawyers. I have much respect for lawyers, despite some of the observations that I have made, but, by heavens, they form part of a conservative profession. They always offer, as the Minister has done, the classic conservative argument that the moment is not right for change, that the moment is not propitious. It is the classic argument of the conservative lawyer, irrespective of political affiliation.
New clause 2 provides for the use of screens. Again the Scottish Office is lagging behind the English. I refer to Home Office circular 61/1990, published in August 1990. The title of the circular is
Use of Screens in Magistrates' Courts.
That circular was sent to the clerk to the Magistrates' Courts Committee and to clerks to the justices, with a copy for the chairmen of the bench, for information. The circular has also been sent to the chief officers of police in England and to the chief probation officer. The circular says about screens:
The purpose of this circular is to bring to the attention of courts a recent decision of the Court of Appeal on the use of screens in courts in cases of violence and/or sexual abuse involving child witnesses.
2. The Court of Appeal, in the case of R v X, R v Y, R v Z [1989] 'The Times' November 3 ruled that the use of screens was not unfair or prejudicial in order to prevent children from being intimidated by their surroundings.
3. Justices' clerks may also wish to be aware that the Advisory Group on Video Evidence, chaired by Judge Pigot, in its Report published in December 1989 recommended that screens should be used in proceedings in magistrates' courts in cases of violence against and/or sexual abuse of children. This would help child witnesses to bear the burdens of appearance in open court, cross-examination, face to face confrontation with the alleged perpetrator and repeated and unnecessary worry about matters which may be extremely distressing or even traumatic.
If the measure is regarded as necessary for English children, why is it not necessary for Scottish children?
During the summer recess, which was not all holiday for hard-working Members of Parliament, I examined—not with an architect's eye but with a shipwright's eye—all the court rooms in the sheriff courts in Edinburgh. On some occasions I sat in on cases. I have examined all the High Court courtrooms and the courtrooms in the sheriff court in Glasgow. That court must be the most modern in Scotland. God knows what the architects were thinking when they placed the witness box in each of those courts within 12 or 15 ft of the dock.
5 pm
In those circumstances, young children may have to give evidence about members of their family—their nearest and dearest—within three or four yards of the accused. If the English can introduce screens and such a circular can be sent out by the Home Office, why cannot the Minister send a similar circular to Scottish sheriffs?
On page 19, paragraph 4·17 the Law commission report says:
we expressed considerable reservations about the use of screens as a means of concealing an accused from the sight of a child who is giving evidence in court. Those reservations were based, first, on a concern that screens might not in fact be effective in reducing a child's anxiety".
I recognise and reaffirm the distinctiveness of our legal system, but in this case we in Scotland have a good deal to learn from the English experience, just as they have a good deal to learn from our excellent system of children's hearings. Screens could be used in some of our courts and, given the architecture of those courts, they would provide an essential protection for children.
As I have said, I have no wish to continue with new clause 3 in the light of the Minister's comprehensive new clauses. However, although I am heartened by the Minister's new clauses, I am deeply disappointed and saddened by his obduracy about the use of screens. He is a courteous and civilised adversary in debates, but, in the light of the Home Office circular to English magistrates, I am appalled at what appears to be a contradiction between what he said in the House last night—column 1060 of Hansard—about the use of video evidence and what he has said today. I am fairly confident that it is a genuine mistake. Like many other hon. Members and many people outwith the House, he has confused closed circuit television links with video recordings. I do not think that there is any such thing as a video link. He is talking about a closed circuit television installation that allows a child to give evidence while sitting in congenial surroundings in a room adjourning the court. There cannot be a video link in those circumstances.
The video-recorded interview is a change. It has been argued for by police officers, police surgeons, social workers and the Royal Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I visited the society's unit in the east end of Glasgow last week. It has a video camera with a two-way mirror. I do not know why they are called two-way mirrors because those being observed cannot see the observers. People such as Norman Dunning and Sam McTaggart of the RSSPCC should be allowed to interview a child following abuse or an assault. That interview should be used in its entirety as a production and should be admissible as evidence. The aim is to reduce the appalling distress that is inflicted upon children following such abuse.
Apparently my new clause has some technical deficiencies, but, if the Minister were to produce something along similar lines, I believe that it would lead to a significant improvement in the rehabilitation and treatment of children caught up in horrendous circumstates. Also it might persuade mothers, in some cases the fathers, or those responsible for the care and protection of children to come forward so that the alleged perpetrator may be proceeded against.
My response to the Minister is mixed. I am pleased with his new clause concerning closed circuit television, but I

am deeply disappointed, indeed angered, over his obdurate response to my new clause 1. He still has a chance to change his mind about my new clause.

Mr. Dewar: There was some laughter when the Minister said that he had consulted the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) about new clause 24. There was a voice from afar, a sort of thought transference, as the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) told us of the hon. and learned Gentleman's support for this proposition. It meant no disrespect to the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross, but the Minister has spent all his time in Committee disagreeing with him on everything and it seems odd that he should now pray in aid his agreement as a conclusive argument.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: All advocates at the Bar will recognise that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross is an exceptionally experienced criminal lawyer. He has had immense experience in the courts. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) has been his junior counsel, as have my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I.

Mr. Dewar: I accept that. I do not wish to spend my time discussing the hon. and learned Gentleman's views except to say that I am not surprised that he supports new clause 24. I should have thought that he would have great doubts about new clause 26, which deals with identification procedures, but I shall come to that.
This is an important announcement. It has come late in our proceedings and I regret that, because we have no opportunity for amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) might have made more progress if this had been carried out on a different timetable. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who, as we know, has long been involved in this matter. He has done an enormous amount of hard work and has shown tremendous interest and commitment in the cause of helping children through the stressful and difficult occasion of having to give evidence in court. The change in views must owe something to my hon. Friend's work and efforts.
I speak perhaps from a prejudiced position. For a short period, I earned my bread and butter as a defence lawyer, practising mainly in the criminal courts. As a counterweight to that, I spent five years as a reporter to the children's panel, which might have given me a rather different perspective. I welcome the new clause on the use of television links to take the evidence of children. I hope that it will work well, because it is important to protect children in that difficult position.
We have heard much about the Scottish Law Commission report, which was published in February and is the fundamental basis of this debate. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow about the fundamental point made in paragraph 4·8, which says that there is
a range of available options from which can be selected the one which appears likely to be the most beneficial in a given case.
There were three available options, and I have some sympathy with the point about the reasons why one of the three has been selected. However, the Minister's argument was not clear on that point.
The Minister should say more about pre-trial deposition, the use of screens and why it was decided not to proceed with them; there is some confusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow made a strong plea on pre-trial deposition, but what he was advocating in his new clause is different from what the Law Commission advocated in its report. He kept saying that it is an excellent report and that it should be implemented, but the key to pre-trial deposition is that it is not just a recorded voluntary statement by the child but a formal examination of the child. A key factor recommended by the Law Commission was that there should be cross-examination of the child by the solicitors appearing for the Crown and defence which should take place at the latest possible date and as near to the trial date as is administratively possible. That is very different from what my hon. Friend was advocating. I do not want to enter into the details of that point because of the constraints on time, but pre-trial deposition can be interpreted in rather different ways. I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow about the use of screens and the Minister should say a little more about them.
It came as a surprise to me that closed circuit television was now selected for debate in this way, and I stress the word "now", because, as anyone who has the most cursory interest in this matter will recognise, it has a curious history. Paragraph 4·28 of the Law Commission's report says:
In the Discussion Paper"—
that was the basis of its findings—
we suggested that live closed circuit television should not be introduced in Scotland as a means of enabling child witnesses to give their evidence. Our principal reason for reaching that conclusion was that we considered that a child who was too frightened to give evidence in court was unlikely to be any less frightened if required to sit in a distant room, surrounded by a mass of cameras and screens … No doubt in view of the negative position which we ourselves had adopted at that stage, the majority of consultees simply agreed with us without making any further comment.
The Law Commission came down decisively against the proposition that it then advocated in its final report because, as I understand it, it reached the conclusion in paragraph 4·31 that
a closed circuit television arrangement along the lines which we have described appears likely to be helpful.
Paragraph 4·29 says that English experience
has persuaded us, first, that a closed circuit television arrangement need not be obtrusive or threatening from the point of view of the child, and second, that it need not, and does not, present problems from the point of view of judges, counsel and, so far as can be ascertained, juries.
It therefore reached its conclusions on the basis of English experience. I want to make a confession to the House which is probably shared by most hon. Members present: I have not seen the English experience in action. I do not know whether the Minister has done so; perhaps when he replies he will say whether he has.
5.15 pm
I do not want to found too much on this, but perhaps as a corrective and a warning I say that we shall have to monitor this practice carefully. I have seen a report of a solicitor whom I know extremely well and who has very wide knowledge of these cases. He is noted for his work in welfare law and cases involving children. He recently visited Guildford Crown court—he showed much enthusiasm in doing so—and I have the report that he

wrote for the benefit of the Law Society. He says that he visited that court in a positive frame of mind. He states that he is strongly in favour of reform and
Given that I approached this task in that frame of mind I was disappointed by what I saw at Guildford. The most abiding overall impression is that the use of the live television link is very obviously more conducive to an inquisitorial process and is very much out of place grafted on to adversarial proceedings.
He mentions several technical difficulties that he witnessed and records the fact, in a rather legal phrase which may prejudice his testimony in some people's minds, that
There is no doubt that the use of this television link system generates an aura in the court which is not conducive to a vigorous defence case.
He backed that up from what he saw in that court.
That is one of the difficulties. We are trying to produce such an atmosphere, but, as was fairly acknowledged by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, the balance must be maintained, and it is sometimes difficult to achieve that.
I do not want to quote that report at length, because it would not be fair to do so, but it is clear that that solicitor, having seen the system in operation, took a rather different view from the Law Commission. We shall obviously have to monitor these matters carefully, although I am certain that we are right to try to strike at the problems of children giving evidence and to create an atmosphere that is fairer and will put them more at ease.
We tend to argue these matters in the context of child abuse cases, but the Government's proposal is available—I stress the word "available"—for any witness under the age of 16. It is perhaps not always true to say that it will be used for a small child who perhaps has been sexually abused by a member of the family.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow mentioned the excellence of the report, but he will not have forgotten that in paragraph 4·7 the Law Commission states:
Any new techniques or procedures will, we anticipate, be required in a relatively small number of cases.
I find that a little disappointing. If the Law Commission is right, such new techniques or procedures may not make as big an impact as perhaps some people expect.
I suspect that most of the evidence that is given by children about sexual abuse, perhaps in the home and involving members of their family, will be given not in criminal trials but in children's panel hearing proofs. Although that is not a criminal trial, and although some courts try to put the child at his or her ease, many of the inhibitions and the problems that will exist for the child giving evidence would exist for him giving evidence in a criminal charge. The effect for the child in terms of what may happen and whether he may continue to live at home is perhaps just as traumatic and drastic. We may have to consider how we run our children's hearing proofs because that may become a matter of some importance.
Does the Minister intend to accept the Scottish Law Commission's recommendation in paragraph 4·40 that guidelines should be laid down for the courts on when these television arrangements should be used? Perhaps he feels that it would be better to leave the matter entirely to the discretion of the courts. The hon. Gentleman should say something also about the Scottish Law Commission's recommendation that, if this system is used, it must be founded on an application before the trial by one of the parties to the trial, be it the Crown or the defence.


Presumably, some thought has been given to that aspect. It would be useful to know whether a pre-trial application must be made and when this system will begin to operate.
The report on the Guildford Crown court proceedings referred to a child who was in a separate room with someone who knew that child—I was going to say "minder" but it sounds a little inhuman. In that case, it was the mother. The counsel who conducted the examination-in-chief and cross-examination remained in the courtroom. I gather that in Canada counsel go into the room with the child and the whole case is examined there. This is a fundamental difference in approach. I suspect that some of the difficulties on which my colleague reported in the Guildford case may have arisen from the fact that there was a preference for counsel on both sides to speak "from afar" through the television mechanism.

Dr. Godman: One can think of variations. Why not put the accused person or persons in a room adjoining the court, with links to the courtroom? One can think of a number of ways in which life can be made much easier for the child without harming the interests of the accused.

Mr. Dewar: That matter can be discussed. It is a fairly basic principle—this may sound like a lawyer's point—that an accused man or woman is entitled to be present throughout his or her trial. If that person is in another room with a television link, there might be problems. However, I take my hon. Friend's point. All these matters can be discussed.
New clause 26 will be of particular concern to many people involved in court work because it involves identification of the accused. Paragraph 3·7 of the Scottish Law Commission report states:
The identification of an accused person as the perpetrator of an alleged offence is always an essential matter which the prosecution requires to establish in the course of a trial.
If this is an essential matter, careful arrangements must be made to ensure that identification can be fairly tested and challenged by the defence if it wishes.
I recognise that "dock identification"—to use the Scottish Law Commission's words—has been in disfavour in England and Wales since 1914 and I recognise all its shortcomings. I have often been struck by the fact that it is not very difficult for a person to know who he is supposed to identify if the other person is sitting in the dock between two policemen. Memory may be unreliable after a period has passed and not be as sound when the trial comes around. Identification is important. I accept that in many of the cases in which this procedure may be used, involving allegations of child abuse within a family, identification may not be a big issue. But for all that, there is a much more wide-ranging power in new clause 26 and we must pay some attention to it.
The Scottish Law Commission dealt at some length with this matter and concluded that in a case where there was identification parade evidence or some other recognised identification procedure—perhaps involving a young person and identification from a group of photographs—evidence of that should be lodged as a production 14 days before the trial. The Scottish Law Commission concluded that, during the period before the trial, the defence should have the right to challenge, and if that evidence were challenged presumably identification would have to be made during the trial in a more

traditional fashion. That may seem a little clumsy. Clearly, an attempt was made to ensure that there was a right of challenge.
New clause 26 states that where
the child gives evidence that he recalls having identified, prior to the trial, a person alleged to have committed an offence, the evidence of a third party as to the identification of that person by the child prior to the trial shall be admissable as evidence as to such identification.
How does the defence challenge that identification? The Minister must address himself to that point. The defence can challenge the third party who is giving evidence, but the third party is not the primary person involved. Is it envisaged that, in those circumstances, the child can be cross-examined? Presumably, one would be able to cross-examine the child about the circumstances in which he made the identification.
It is important to establish exactly what is envisaged because the identification may be vital in some cases. Even in sexual abuse cases, assumptions may be made about who is responsible. In my experience, such assumptions are not always justified. Another person may have been responsible, even if the incident took place as described. We all know that identification can be shaken. I know even from my limited and lowly experience in the sheriff court that identification has been decisively shaken under cross-examination in terms of the jury's decision.
I am concerned about new clause 26. I recognise that we do not want to put undue pressure on a child, but some cases relate to charges that are peculiarly damaging to the reputation of the accused and have disastrous consequences. We must be careful to ensure that there is a right to challenge identification evidence. I am not sure whether, on the face of new clause 26, that will apply as well as the Minister would like. I hope that he will comment on that matter.
My fears may be exaggerated. For example, there may be a pre-trial application by the Crown to protect a child. The defence may say, "The essence of our defence is that my witness was not involved. There has been a mistake in identification." The court may take that information into account in deciding whether this procedure is entirely appropriate. There is a difficult balance to strike and there are unanswered questions about the identification issue.
I have taken enough time to express some of my anxieties. We are right to go down this road. I have some sympathy with the screen proposal. I feel that much more work should be done on the matter of pre-trial depositions than is possible during these truncated proceedings. I hope that what the Minister offers will protect the child, remove the threatening majesty of the system, allow the child to speak more freely and in a more relaxed fashion and allow the court to get the truth with more certainty, which is the point of the exercise. It is difficult to strike a balance, but I am happy with the idea that we should introduce these provisions, that we should monitor them carefully and that we should learn from experience and consider what further steps are necessary.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I have grave reservations about these provisions. Those reservations are in no sense ameliorated by the fact that we are discussing these matters against the background of a time restraint. What we are discussing represents a substantial innovation in criminal procedure and the law of evidence in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) spoke with great sincerity and on the basis of


considerable analysis and work. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think that my reaction is the automatic reaction that one might expect from someone involved in the law.
I do not claim to have the experience of defending in the criminal courts that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) has, but I have had the advantage of prosecuting and defending and I suspect that that may entitle me to claim a rather more rounded view of the difficulties to which the new clauses may give rise. The hon. Member for Glasgow Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has referred to some of those difficulties already. But it is also important to realise that new clause 24 applies not simply to cases involving assaults on children, as its language makes plain. It says that the court will have the power available to it
where a child has been cited to give evidence in a trial".
That means any trial.
5.30 pm
There may well be cases in which it is not the prosecution but the defence that seeks to take advantage of the new clause. The defence may judge it in the interests of the accused to create the kind of artificiality to which we shall undoubtedly be subjected if the child is in another room while the proceedings of the court are taking place in the courtroom.
One important issue has not been addressed so far. The accused person is not represented by counsel or solicitors in every case; he may choose to represent himself. In such cases, the court is slow to allow anything to happen that may be prejudicial to the accused by reason of the fact that he or she is not legally represented. It has been suggested that we might follow the Canadian model and have counsel or solicitors in the same room as the child witness. The whole purpose of the new clause would be defeated if the accused was representing himself and went with the prosecutor to the room where the child was being kept. The proposal is by no means straightforward.
Moreover, one should not underestimate the difficulties for the prosecutor if the child is to be kept in a room away from the court. Often a stage is reached in a child' evidence at which, for a whole variety of reasons—some of which have been canvassed—the child becomes reluctant to continue and needs to be prompted. Those who have prosecuted in cases that involve children giving evidence know that there are certain devices that one can use. One may adopt a slightly different tone. Within the bounds of proper questions, and not transgressing by the use of leading questions, one may remind the child of some factor that may persuade him to remember his evidence. We should not discount, or be unaware of, the difficulties that may be caused to both prosecution and defence in the ordinary conduct of criminal proceedings if those proceedings are conducted in accordance with the new clause.
The new clause lists a number of factors that the court must take into account in considering whether to allow such an application. Absent from that list of factors is something that is an essential feature of all criminal proceedings—fairness to the accused. As the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow said, the purpose of this innovation is to prevent children from having to suffer the additional traumatic effects of having to give evidence about extremely unpleasant events in which they may have been involved. But however laudable and desirable that

purpose may be, it must always he subordinate to our overriding purpose, which is to convict the guilty and to ensure that the innocent are not convicted. The absence of any reference to fairness to the accused in the critieria set out in the new clause is certainly worthy of note and, in my view, gives rise to some concern.
Like the hon. Member for Garscadden, I am especially apprehensive about the effect of new clause 26. I intervened in the Minister's opening remarks to say so, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had to chide me for the length of my intervention. It was only a reflection of my concern.
Suppose that, on a previous occasion, a child has identified someone who is subsequently charged and who is an accused person in criminal proceedings. It would appear that, however informal the circumstances were, and whatever the nature of the relationship between the child and the person to whom the identification was made, it would be open to that person to come to the court and say that that identification was made.
Those of us who have participated in criminal trials involving children know that there is the constant fear of coaching. Such an identification may well have been made in response to a series of leading questions—to questions of an interrogatory nature and questions that might contain some threat or inducement. Nevertheless, the identification would become admissible in evidence. Moreover, under new clause 26, the fact of the identification having been made would still be a matter on which the child, and the person to whom it was made, could be cross-examined.
No doubt the Minister has given careful consideration to the cases of Muldoon v. Her Majesty's Advocate and Bennett v. Her Majesty's Advocate and will know the extent to which the High Court of Justiciary has departed from the apparently inflexible rule that identification could be carried out only in the presence of the accused in the course of the proceedings. But I wonder whether careful consideration was given to the effect that this new clause, which is designed to protect children, would have and to the extent to which it may innovate in respect of the principle of fairness to the accused person.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I apologise for not having been here throughout the debate.
I support new clause 24 because I think that it represents the best way of not putting odium upon an accused person. The protection of the accused lies in the fact that there must be an application to justify. It is not a matter automatic; the procedure must be justified by application to the court. That is most important.
I should also like to bring to the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) something that I did not know until last week. Apparently, in England, an identification in court—which I have always thought pretty suspect—is not valid.

Mr. Campbell: On the latter point, I have never known the hon. and learned Gentleman to be anxious to import into the procedure of the law of Scotland things that take place in England. At the centre of our criminal procedure has been the fact that identification must be live identification, although that was watered down to some extent by the views expressed by the court in the case of Muldoon v. Her Majesty's Advocate.
In respect of new clause 26, I have tried to illustrate the kind of difficulties that may arise when one embarks on an innovation in the established procedures. The motivation behind such innovations may be of the best but they may raise important and significant issues of principle none the less. I understand that, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, any application under new clause 24 can be granted only by a court if an application is made to it. The language of the new clause states "on cause shown". I understand that, but, as I said before the hon. and learned Gentleman joined us in the Chamber, fairness to the accused must stand at the centre of our criminal proceedings. My concern is that the absence of an express reference to that among the factors that the court must take into account is a serious omission.
The mood of the House, the country and those who are concerned with these matters is that something should be done to try to assist the giving of evidence by children. It would be churlish and small-minded to try to stand out against that. However, as the hon. Member for Garscadden seemed to imply, I believe that we are embarking upon a substantial innovation that may well give rise to difficulties of which we have not yet conceived in the short time available for our debates.
In those circumstances, there is a substantial obligation on the Minister to give an undertaking that there will be the most careful monitoring of what takes place. On the issues of identification and the effective representation of an accused person, we need an undertaking that those matters will be examined with great care to ensure that no prejudice arises. It would be most unfortunate if, in our anxiety to do well by children, either through inadvertence or omission, we created circumstances that caused great unfairness to accused persons.
As has been said many times, it is a question of balance. I am prepared to take a bet on the balance being established by these provisions. None the less, I feel it important to enter these reservations and to urge the Minister to ensure that this innovation in our law does not pass unmonitored and that its effects are properly taken into account and understood.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I intend to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish first to congratulate the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on his assiduous work over a considerable period, which has brought this matter eventually to the Floor of the House. It is a pity that we did not have an opportunity to explore this issue in more detail in Committee, because this is a significant innovation. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern because I, too, do not belive that the provisions go far enough. I share his disappointment that pre-trial video depositions are not to be introduced because that would have been a major step forward.
I listened with great interest to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). I found it difficult to understand many of his technical legal arguments. He seemed extremely pessimistic about the venture upon which our legal system is now embarking. We have a responsibility to take such steps forward. My background is in social work training. Anyone who has read case studies of children who have been physically or

sexually abused knows the trauma through which those children have lived and which they are asked to relive time and time again when asked to give evidence.
This week, many people have been thinking about the horrendous case of the 11-year-old girl who was raped in a ward at St. Helier hospital. We must think of the trauma that that girl and her family have undergone. In similar circumstances in Scotland, we would want to ensure that that child and her family would be spared as many difficulties as possible when bringing the accused to justice and to ensure that it never happens again.
From a humanitarian point of view, the provisions are a step forward for children in our society. I not only wish the new clause every success, but hope that its provisions will be extended to take account of the other points raised not only by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, but also by the Scottish Law Commission.
The Minister said that television circuits would be introduced first in Edinburgh and Glasgow. When will that happen? The hon. Gentleman also mentioned monitoring. How long does he envisage the monitoring period lasting? Will it be for a short period or for two or three years? I should like to know how long it will be until a final decision is taken. We should also like to know who will decide whether the experiment has been a success, and the criteria for deciding whether it is a success or a failure.
I know that the Minister will respond positively—I can tell by the look on his face that he intends to refer to these important points. Many people in Scotland are waiting to hear the exact details of his proposals.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), without whom I am sure that the House would not be discussing these issues. I also want to put on record my great condemnation of the fact that this House saw fit to discuss such relative trivialities as the conduct of the financial affairs of charities for many days in Committee, and yet something as important as this issue has been pushed in at the tail end of our consideration. That is a deplorable sense of proportion. I hope that, when the House is considering a future Scottish law reform Bill, it will give such issues far greater prominence.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow that screens could be an important and valuable part of setting a child at ease, reassuring him or her, and making it possible for the child to feel less fear. I hope that we shall see some progress on that in the future.
On the issue of the stage at which a child should be interviewed, I accept that both prosecution and defence must cross-examine the child in the interests of justice. However, I do not understand why anyone should think that that cross-examination should invariably take place as near as possible to the date of the trial. I should have thought that, in most cases, the nearer the date of the interview, carried out by both sides, to the events being complained about, the better. Obviously, when the child already knows the person or persons who are accused, recognition of those individuals is irrelevant. However, when the accused persons are not known to the child, it is clear that the sooner the proceedings take place after the event the more likely it is that the child will properly be able to recall events and to recognise those concerned.
I was once a witness to a crime and reported the person to the police as having long, greasy red hair, of slim build and about 5 ft. 6 in. tall, but if that person had turned up in court a year later with his hair cut and washed and wearing different clothes, I might not have recognised him if he had not been standing in the dock. It is nonsense to expect a child—possibly a young child—to have clear recall many months after an event.
I turn now to the claim that children never tell lies. They are not capable of telling lies involving events that are outside their experience. A child cannot invent something which he or she has never encountered, because a child could not recognise such things. Children do not invent things that they could have learnt about only from pornographic magazines, for example, if they have never set eyes on them. That means that children are likely to be telling the truth. In the Cleveland controversy, in their anxiety to protect persons from unjust accusations, some people were far too prone to go around saying that children generally tell lies about such events. For the reasons that I have explained, I do not believe that.
Although I accept that, in justice to the accused person, the questioning must be partly adversarial, it should be carried out in such a way as to ensure that it is a seeking out of the truth. The adversarial aspect of a normal trial might rattle and unsettle a child and cause him to keep silent. That is to be deplored and it must be avoided.
Not enough account has been taken of the fact that it is not only the court that might intimidate a child. A child witness in a high court or a sheriff court might have to travel a long way to take part in a trial and might have to stay overnight in an unfamiliar setting. He might have to have breakfast in an hotel dining room and sleep in a strange bed—all that can be unsettling, as any parent will know. Since little can be done about these unsettling events, it is all the more important to try to create as much of an atmosphere of confidence as possible for the child.
I was interested to receive in my mail this week—most hon. Members must have received it too—a newsletter from the Scottish Child Law Centre. It contains an inquiry page on which a social worker dealing with a number of abused children who would be appearing in court to testify had asked the writers of the publication what could be done to ease the position of such children. We have already heard about a memorandum that came out in the summer describing some improvements which have already been made, such as people no longer wearing wigs and gowns, but I think that the advice given to the social worker shows that there is a long way to go yet. It was that
preparation can sometimes be difficult because of lack of consistency in approaches by judges to the protection of child witnesses".
Such inconsistences must be reduced as much as humanly possible. It should not be left to a judge to decide how he or she should approach the protection of child witnesses. I hope for some code of practice on such matters.
The same publication goes on to refer to a Crown office leaflet entitled "Going to Court", which can be helpful, and to a leaflet which is apparently used for children in English courts, entitled "Susie and the Wise Hedgehog go to Court". It seems that that could be used to some extent in Scotland, and such publications should be used for the benefit of young children. In rarefied debates such as this, we often forget about the language in which young children think.
All these aspects must be examined much more thoroughly than is possible in these circumstances. The fact that so many judges are elderly and upper class shows the chasm between them and children who may speak broadest Glaswegian. They may not be able to communicate with each other at all.
I agree with other hon. Members that these measures must be carefully monitored. I hope that, next time we discuss Scottish law reform, we shall draw up a comprehensive programme on how to deal with children in Scottish courts and make it an important part of future Scottish legal legislation, instead of treating the subject at the tail end of a Bill as if children hardly mattered.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This has been an important debate in which the need increased protection of children has been accepted.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) asked whether television links were novel. They are not; they are already used in England and Wales, and we shall monitor them carefully.
All courts will be directed in matters concerning fairness to the accused and the interests of justice in all criminal proceedings, so these aspects do not need to be expressly provided for.
I agree about the importance of identification, which the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) mentioned. At pre-trial identification, the accused will have the right to be represented, but if his representative wishes to challenge the identification at the trial he is free to do so, and if necessary to examine the child on the identification procedures.
Informal identification is admissible, and the court can take that evidence into consideration, but it is not required to believe it or to decide the case in accordance with it. The court must weigh the evidence.
I have not seen the television rules in operation in England, but my Scottish Office officials certainly have. We shall draw on their assessment and make certain that the procedures and equipment operate effectively in Scotland. The Guildford courts use voice-activated television rather than fixed television, and that confirms the need for careful monitoring.
I was asked whether the procedures would be applied to proof before a children's hearing. The answer is, not at this stage. We have decided that it is appropriate in the first instance to introduce the live television link procedure for child witnesses in criminal trials, but we shall have to monitor that closely, too.
There are views that screens do not operate effectively to reduce a child's anxiety, so the Government want to proceed initially relying on the Lord Justice General's memorandum and advice to judges, and also on live video links. Screens can be used at present with the consent of the accused and the defence.
Evidence on commission is a judicial deposition. There may be difficulties in taking the child's evidence in parts. We think it better in the meantime to take all the evidence at the trial, if necessary using television links.
Subject to consultation with the judiciary, the starting date in Edinburgh and Glasgow will be 1991; and thereafter, following monitoring, throughout Scotland.
The hon. Member for Garscadden asked about regulation. It can be done by Act of Adjournal as appropriate.
I was asked whether counsel would be in a court room or in a side room with a child. Counsel would remain in the court room. The television link would provide the link between the court room and the adjacent room where the child was.
I was asked about the Home Office circular which follows an English appeal about the use of screens in English courts. In Scotland, screens have been used successfully with the consent of the accused.
New clause 24 provides for the court to determine whether these circumstances are appropriate to the use of these special procedures. Before the court reaches a decision, it will have to consider an application from one of the parties, and it will be open to the other party to seek to oppose the application if he or she so wishes. If the application is granted and one of the parties subsequently considers that the trial was not fair, it would be open to that party to lodge an appeal.
This is a major step, and I think that we are right to take it, but we are also correct to proceed cautiously, because we must consider not only the protection of the child but also fairness to the accused.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 25

TRANSFER OF CASES IN WHICH CHILD'S EVIDENCE IS TO BE GIVEN THROUGH TELEVISION LINK

'.—(1) Where a sheriff to whom an application has been made under section (Evidence of children through television link in criminal proceedings) of this Act would have granted the application but for the lack of accommodation or equipment necessary to achieve the purpose of the application, he may by order transfer the case to any sheriff court which has such accommodation and equipment available, being a sheriff court in the same sheriffdom.

(2) The sheriff court to which a case is transferred under this section shall be deemed to have granted an application under that section in relation to the case.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 26

IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED BY CHILD

'. Where a court has, or is deemed to have, granted an application made under section (Evidence of children through television link in criminal proceedings) of this Act in relation to a child cited to give evidence in a trial, and the child gives evidence that he recalls having identified, prior to the trial, a person alleged to have committed an offence, the evidence of a third party as to the identification of that person by the child prior to the trial shall be admissible as evidence as to such identification.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 27

INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS (EVIDENCE OF CHILDREN THROUGH TELEVISION LINK IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS), (TRANSFER OF CASES IN WHICH CHILD'S EVIDENCE IS TO BE GIVEN THROUGH TELEVISION LINK) AND (IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED BY A CHILD)

'. In sections (Evidence of children through television link in criminal proceedings), (Transfer of cases in which child's evidence is to be given through television link) and ( Identification of accused by a child) of this Act, unless the contrary intention appears—

'child' means a person under the age of 16 years;
'court' means the High Court of Justiciary or the sheriff court; and
'trial' means a trial under solemn or under summary procedure.'—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 28

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF SHERIFF COURT

'. The following subsection shall be inserted at the end of each of sections 3 and 288 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 to form subsection (4) and subsection (5) respectively of these sections—
'( ) Where an offence is alleged to have been committed in one district in a sheriffdom, it shall be competent to try that offence in a sheriff court in any other district in that sheriffdom.'—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 29

EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS BY COMPANIES

'.—(1) For section 36B of the Companies Act 1985 (execution of documents: Scotland) there shall be substituted the following section—

Execution of documents: Scotland.

36B.—(1) This section has effect in relation to the execution of any document by a company under the law of Scotland on or after 31 July 1990.

(2) For any purpose other than those mentioned in subsection (3) below, a document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company by a director or the secretary of the company or by a person authorised to sign the document on its behalf.

(3) For the purposes of any enactment or rule of law relating to the authentication of documents under the law of Scotland, a document is validly executed by a company if it is subscribed on behalf of the company by—

(a) two of the directors of the company;
(b) a director and the secretary of the company; or
(c) two persons authorised to subscribe the document on behalf of the company,

notwithstanding that such subscription is not attested by witnesses and the document is not sealed with the company's common seal.

(4) A document which bears to be executed by a company in accordance with subsection (3) above is, in relation to such execution, a probative document.

(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of any enactment (including an enactment contained in this section) a company need not have a common seal.

(6) For the purposes of any enactment providing for a document to be executed by a company by affixing its common seal or referring (in whatever terms) to a document so executed, a document signed or subscribed on behalf of the company by—

(a) two directors of the company;
(b) a director and the secretary of the company; or
(c) two persons authorised to sign or subscribe the document on behalf of the company,

shall have effect as if executed under the common seal of the company.

(7) In this section "enactment" includes an enactment contained in a statutory instrument.

(8) Subsections (2) and (3) above are—

(a) without prejudice to any other method of execution of documents by companies permitted by any enactment or rule of law; and
(b) subject to any other enactment making express provision, in relation to companies, as to the execution of a particular type of document."

(2) Where, on or after 31 July 1990 and prior to the coming into force of this section, a document was signed or subscribed, in accordance with section 36B(2) of the Companies Act 1985 (as inserted by section 130(3) of the Companies Act 1989), by—

(a) a company; or
(b) a body corporate to which section 36B of the 1985 Act (as so inserted) applied by, under or by virtue of any enactment,

that document shall be deemed to have been validly executed by the company or body corporate in accordance with subsection (2) of section 36B of the 1985 Act as substituted by subsection (1) above.

(3) Where, on or after 31 July 1990 and prior to the coming into force of this section, the presumption in section 36B(3) of the Companies Act 1985 (as inserted by section 130(3) of the Companies Act 1989) applied in relation to a document, that document shall be deemed to have been validly executed in accordance with subsection (3) of section 36B of the 1985 Act as substituted by subsection (1) above, and subsection (4) of that section as so substituted shall apply to the document as if it bore to be so executed.

(4) For the avoidance of doubt, in determining, for the purposes of subsection (3) above, whether the presumption in section 36B(3) of the Companies Act 1985 (as inserted by section 130(3) of the Companies Act 1989) applied in relation to a document, the reference in section 36B(2)(b) of the 1985 Act (as so inserted) to the last page shall be construed as a reference to the last page of the document excluding any inventory, appendix, schedule, plan or other document annexed to the document.

(5) Any reference to section 36B of the Companies Act 1985 (however expressed) in any enactment (including an enactment contained in a statutory instrument) shall be construed as a reference to section 36B of that Act as substituted by subsection (1) above.'—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 129 to 135.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The clause has the full support of the Law Society of Scotland. It deals with a complex legal point. It has unanimous support, and it is important for lawyers' practising in commercial law in Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to new clause 5. I call Dr. Norman Godman.

Dr. Godman: With a heavy heart, not moved.

New Clause 9

PROCEDURE AT TRIAL OF PERSONS SUFFERING FROM MENTAL DISORDER

'(1) Sections 174 (Insanity in bar of trial or as the ground of acquittal) and 376 (Power of court to order hospital admission or guardianship) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 shall be amended as follows—

(2) After subsection (3) of section 174 there shall be inserted the following subsection:—

"(3A) An Order made by a Court in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection, concerning the detention of a person in a State hospital or such other hospital specified, shall cease to have effect if the person the Order refers to is reprosecuted and the case disposed of by a Court."

(3) After subsection (1) of section 376 there shall be inserted the following subsection:—

"(1A) An Order made by a Court in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection, concerning the detention of a person in a hospital or the placing of a person under the guardianship of a specified local authority or person, shall cease to have effect if the person the Order refers to is reprosecuted and the case disposed of by a Court.".'.—[Mr. Menzies Campbell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6 pm

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I shall try to adopt the spirit of the proceedings. The clause is important but I shall try to deal with it briefly. It seeks to address an issue that has been brought to my attention by Dr. Derek Chiswick, an eminent consultant forensic psychiatrist at the Royal Edinburgh hospital. It seeks to deal with the circumstances that may arise If an accused person is found insane in bar of trial under solemn procedure and is thereafter automatically committed to the state hospital at Carstairs without limit of time by virtue of the provisions of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. When such a person subsequently becomes sane and fit to plead, he may be brought back to be reprosecuted. However, there is now an automatic procedure whereby the original hospital restriction orders are terminated after reprosecution. Thus it may be the case that accused persons acquitted after reprosecution could, theoretically at least, find themselves still liable to be detained without limit of time in the state hospital at Carstairs.
Along with two other eminent colleagues, Dr. Chiswick has written a helpful article on this matter in the Psychiatric Bulletin 1990, volume 14, pages 208–10. That article sets out precisely the kind of circumstances to which I have referred and draws attention to two cases, one arising from proceedings in December 1986 at the High Court in Edinburgh and the second in January 1985 at the Dunoon sheriff court. In each of those cases there was reprosecution. In the first case the accused was acquitted by reason of the judge determining that there was insufficient evidence against her to allow the case to continue and the prosecution to proceed. The second case was slightly different, but in both cases it was necessary for the Secretary of State to authorise an absolute discharge some time after the second set of proceedings had been concluded. I understand that in England and Wales there is a power, similar to the one sought by the new clause, in the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964.
As the Minister will readily appreciate, the new clause applies not only to solemn proceedings but to summary proceedings. That is precisely the kind of issue which a Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill should address, and it should find favour with the Minister because it involves what I suppose one might describe as a tidying up of the legislative situation in Scotland. Such a situation has not arisen in England because of relevant statutory provisions. I urge the Minister to give the new clause a favourable reception. It can hardly be regarded as contentious and would remove a statutory anomaly which the two cases referred to by Dr. Chiswick and his colleagues plainly demonstrate is urgently required.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. and learned Gentleman has raised an extremely interesting matter. I have considerable sympathy with what he is trying to achieve and there is some force in the new clause. I shall look carefully at the matter with a view to dealing with it comprehensively at an appropriate time in the future. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for raising the matter.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: If the Minister would give a little more urgency to
an appropriate time in the future
I should be satisfied, because cases clearly have arisen and may be likely to arise at any time. The longer the delay, the more likely is the continuation of this statutory anomaly. If the Minister will inject a note of urgency into his undertaking, I shall not find it necessary to press the matter.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We shall do our best in the light of what is possible.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I do not wish to be seen as unreceptive to the Minister's generosity but he could do a little better than that. He is like the drowning man, and I offer him a third and last opportunity to say that the matter will be treated urgently.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot commit the Government to immediate legislation. I do not know exactly what will be in the Queen's Speech, although its terms will soon be revealed. Obviously, we shall do our best.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I accept that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 19

SETTING ASIDE OF CONVICTIONS

'In section 453 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (consent of prosecutor to set aside the conviction) the words in subsection (3) "not exceeding £40·00" shall be deleted and the words ", the amount of which to be decided at the discretion of the Court," added.'.—[Sir David Steel.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir David Steel: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I express my gratitude to Mr. Speaker for selecting this new clause. It was not in the provisional selection list yesterday, but Mr. Speaker paid some heed to my

representation which was, in short, that one of the purposes of our being here at all is to seek the redress of grievances. The new clause seeks such a redress which cannot be achieved for one of my constituents, whose case I shall shortly outline. However, it will be of benefit to others who find themselves in a similar position.
Time is short and I shall not go into the details of the case. Suffice it to say that in 1987 a constituent living in Melrose was convicted in the Clydesdale district court in Lanark on a charge of speeding. Some two years later it came to light that the conviction was an error and should not stand. He then received a letter from the procurator fiscal in Lanark setting out the procedure to be adopted in order to appeal by way of bill of suspension. It was explained to him that the procedure is laid down in section 453 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. That is the section which I seek to amend. This is the only procedure that Parliament has provided for such cases where a conviction is in error and the Crown, like everyone else, must follow it.
The procedure is relatively straightforward. In particular, the parties do not require to be heard in a court at all and the matter can be dealt with expeditiously by a judge sitting in chambers. Section 453(3) of the Act allows expenses not exceeding £40 to be awarded to the appellant and paid by the Crown. My constituent pursued this procedure and his solicitor's fees were a not unreasonable £170. He was therefore out of pocket in achieving the lawful redress of his grievance which Parliament has allowed. I took the matter up with the Lord Advocate and had a helpful reply from the Solicitor-General. It states:
I recognise that in fact your constituent was left out of pocket. I have noted this point and can reassure you that any future review of procedure will consider whether this particular aspect can be further simplified in some way.
I received that letter during the summer recess. It seems wrong to allow a miscellaneous provisions Bill of this kind to go through the House without taking the opportunity to put this matter right since it is acknowledged by the Crown Office that an amendment should be made.
The 1975 Act allowed for expenses of £20 and by statutory instrument in 1984 that was raised to £40. I am assured by those who know about these things that inflation alone means that in real terms £40 in 1984 should now be £150. My basic point is why we have a fixed sum in the principal Act at all. My proposal is that the expenses awarded to an aggrieved person should be at the discretion of the court. I do not think that that discretion would be used irresponsibly. The new clause is a sensible amendment to the criminal law of Scotland and the House should seize the opportunity to adopt it.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) described the position accurately. I was interested to hear the details of his constituent's difficulties. The amount of compensation—£40—was set by statutory instrument in 1984, and the time may have come to review that figure. When it was set, it represented an appropriate limit on expenses. In the light of the circumstances mentioned, I propose to consider—in consultation with interested parties and taking account of the terms of the 1975 Act, which enables the Secretary of State to substitute a new sum, having regard to the changes in the value of money—what adjustment is necessary by means of a further statutory instrument.
The right hon. Gentleman wanted me to go a little further and consider whether this matter could be dealt with more thoroughly by further legislation. I will consider that matter in the future, but the immediate option is a statutory instrument, and that can be proceeded with relatively quickly.

Sir David Steel: I shall press the Minister on two points. First, this is not compensation—the hon. Gentleman may have made a slip of the tongue—because we are talking about the expenses incurred by an aggrieved individual in seeking redress of a grievance. My contention is that, within reason, these expenses should be met. It is far better for a court to judge that matter than for the House to judge it in abstract.
Secondly, if I simply accept the Minister's assurance on a statutory instrument, I shall not have done my duty. We all know the pressure on both the Scottish Office and the time of the House. How do we know when a statutory instrument will be introduced? The erosion of money values since 1984, when the matter was last examined, is serious. Would it not be more simple to accept the principle that the court should determine the right limit on expenses, rather than establishing a sum that has to be constantly updated by statutory instrument? I hope that the Minister will give me a rather more cheerful reply.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I hope that we can introduce a statutory instrument before too long. There should be no problem.
On the second point, before we introduce any legislation, it will be necessary to consult the interested parties.
The right hon. Gentleman has raised relevant points and we shall consider them carefully.

Sir David Steel: Is the Minister saying that a statutory instrument will be introduced fairly quickly?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes.

Sir David Steel: On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 59

BLOOD AND OTHER SAMPLES IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 102, in page 63, line 7, leave out 'direct' and insert 'request'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 103 to 107.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: These are technical amendments on DNA, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Dewar: I accept that these are technical amendments, but they relate to an important clause, which introduces into civil actions in Scotland a new power, which will probably be brought into play most commonly in paternity cases. The DNA test, or genetic fingerprinting, allows deciding the truth of the matter to be put beyond any significant chance of error. I was pleased when the new clause that I moved in Committee on this subject was accepted by the Government. I hope that it will end the bitterness and humiliation that is all too often built into

paternity cases. I have been involved in such cases—in a professional sense—and they are not a pleasant experience.
The Committee and the House spent some time on the protection of children giving evidence in court, and spoke of the stress put on them. There is a strong case for introducing the change set out in this clause as it protects those who might otherwise become entrenched combatants in paternity cases. I am delighted that this will reach the statute book, and it is a worthwhile part of the Bill.
Will the Minister say something about commencement? I know that there is a citation and commencement clause in the Bill—clause 62—under which certain parts of the Bill come into force within two months, beginning with the date on which the Act is passed. Clause 59 is not one of them, which means, as I understand clause 62(2), that it will be brought into force.
on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument".
This is not just idle curiosity. I have had inquiries, in particular from solicitors who have an active interest in this machinery, about when the commencement order will be laid. It would be useful if the Minister could help me on that point.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It will come into force two months after Royal Assent. I understand that this is covered in the clause.

Mr. Dewar: Can I press the Minister on that point? I may be becoming obtuse and goitered in my old age—

Mr. Menzies Campbell: That is not true.

Mr. Dewar: Thank you for that loyal all-party vote of confidence from behind me.
Clause 62 refers to the provisions of part III, which is the licensing part, and says that it and
section 55 of this Act and so much of section 61 as relates to those provisions; and
(b) section 56 of this Act and paragraphs 21 and 32 of Schedule 7 to this Act,
shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
Therefore, clause 59 is not included, so it must be covered by clause 62(2), which provides that it will commence when an order is laid before the House. If the Minister is saying that he intends to lay an order so that the clause will be brought into effect two months after the passing of the Act, I am happy with that, but that seems an unlikely promise, so I should like him to confirm it.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can confirm that that is the intention. I believe that we can proceed along those lines under the terms of the Bill. There should be no problem and the provisions will commence two months after the passing of the Act.

Mr. Dewar: I am obliged.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 103, in page 63, line 13, leave out 'direction' and insert 'request'.

No. 104, in page 63, line 14, leave out 'given' and insert 'made'.

No. 105, in page 63, line 16, leave out 'directed' and insert 'requested'.

No. 106, in page 63, leave out lines 22 to 28 and insert—

'(3) In section 6 of the Law Reform (Parent and Child) (Scotland) Act 1986 (determination of parentage by blood sample)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words "blood sample" there shall be substituted "sample of blood or other body fluid or of body tissue"; and
(b) in each of subsections (2), (3) and (4), for the words "a blood" there shall be substituted "such a".'

No. 107, in page 63, line 31, leave out 'Act' and insert 'section'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 62

CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 64, line 12, leave out 'subsection (3)' and insert 'subsections (3) and (3A)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 59.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: These amendments put the law back to what everyone thought that it was. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Dewar: We have made such good progress so suddenly and unexpectedly that I can allow myself the luxury of asking a question. As I understand the situation, the means test courts have been operating in a way that is not justified by the law of Scotland, so that these amendments give them the powers that they always thought that they had to act in the way that they have always acted. If that is the position, I am curious about what happens if someone challenges the competence of what the courts have been doing. Will it be necessary to allow for compensation, or to make provision to undo the damage that has been done if, for example, someone has gone to prison as a result of this misunderstanding of the law? I am in favour of things being put right, but will the Minister say a word or two about the consequences for those who were dealt with under a misapprehension?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I do not think that there will be a problem. The amendments clarify the position. They implement the provisions to empower the means inquiry courts to allow a fine defaulter more time to pay his or her fine and at the same time to impose a period of imprisonment in the event of future default. As hon. Members know, a recent High Court ruling cast doubt on this practice and the necessary clarification was agreed unanimously in Committee. It is right, as the courts in Scotland are conducting means inquiries daily, that the legal position should be clarified as soon as possible.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Has anybody been sent to prison as a result of non-payment of fines on a misunderstanding of the legal powers of the sheriff?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will have to check on that, but not to my knowledge. The point is that doubt was cast on the process by a High Court ruling, so that it was necessary to clarify the matter to make certain that that would not happen.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 108, in page 64, line 19, leave out 'section 56' and insert

'sections 56, 59 and (Effect of mental incapacity on powers of attorney etc.)'.

No. 59, in page 64, line 22 at end insert—
'(3A) Paragraph 27(4) of Schedule 7 to this Act shall come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.'

No. 129, in page 64, line 23, leave out 'subsection (5)' and insert 'subsections (4A) and (5)'.

No. 130, in page 64, line 23, at end insert—
'(4A) Section ( Execution of documents by companies) of this Act, paragraph 31A of Schedule 7 to this Act and Schedule 8 to this Act so far as relating to the Companies Act 1985 and the Companies Act 1989 extend also to England and Wales.'—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 1

SCOTTISH CONVEYANCING AND EXECUTRY SERVICES BOARD

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 65, leave out from 'securing' in line 17 to end of line 23 and insert—
'(a) that members of the Board have expertise or knowledge of—

 (i) the provision of conveyancing and executry services;
(ii) the financial arrangements connected with the purchase and sale of heritable property;
(iii) consumer affairs; and
(iv) commercial affairs; and

(b) that, so far as is reasonably practicable, the composition of the Board is such as to provide a proper balance between the interests of, on the one hand, qualified conveyancers and executry practitioners and, on the other hand, those who make use of their services.'
The amendment fulfils an undertaking that I gave in Committee to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).

Mr. Dewar: I shall be brief, but the amendment is worth comment. I thank the Minister for honouring his undertaking on a quite significant matter. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Scottish Consumer Council pressed hard for the amendment, and it was right to take an interest in the executry board's membership. The amendment brings us into line with the phraseology that appears in the Courts and Legal Services Bill, which is the English equivalent. The important point is that, in appointing members to the board, the Government are committed to ensuring that
as far as is reasonably practical, the composition of the Board is such as to provide a proper balance between the interests of, on the one hand, qualified conveyancers and executry practitioners and, on the other hand, those who make use of their services.
It is important to maintain that balance. There is a danger, which we could fall into unintentionally, of appointing to the board only people with technical skills, so that the board ends up with a collection of lawyers, qualified conveyancers and suchlike. Of course they have an important contribution to make, but it is valuable to put in statute a burden on the Government to keep in mind the need for proper representation of those who consume the services—not in a token manner, but as a means of ensuring a proper balance. I understand that to be more than someone being a lone individual playing a lone role against the serried ranks of those who may—not in a vicious, but in a practical sense—have a vested interest in the profession that is being regulated. It is a worthwhile provision, and I thank the Minister for including it.

Amendment agreed to.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in page 66, line 6, at end insert—
'(2) Where a person ceases to be a member of the Board otherwise than on the expiry of his term of office, and it appears to the Board that there are special circumstances which make it right for that person to receive compensation, the Board may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, make a payment to that person of such amount as the Board may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, determine,'

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we may discuss Government amendments Nos. 62, 68 and 109.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: These are technical amendments relating to the payment of pension provisions for the ombudsman.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 62, in page 66, line 13, leave out
'by way of compensation for loss of employment' and insert '(including pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation to or in respect of any such employee who suffers loss of employment).'

No. 63, in page 68, leave out lines 14 to 17 and insert—
'18. The Board may exercise the power conferred by paragraph 18A below for the following purposes—

(a) an inquiry under subsection (1) of section 18 of this Act;
(b) a review of a decision by virtue of subsection (10)(a) of that section; and
(c) consideration by the Board whether to exercise the powers conferred on them by section (Board's intervention powers) of this Act.

18A. The Board may give notice in writing to a practitioner specifying the subject matter of their investigation and requiring either or both of the following-'.

No. 64, in page 68, line 21, leave out 'inquiry' and insert 'investigation'.

No. 65, in page 68, line 24, leave out 'inquiry' and insert 'investigation".

No. 66, in page 68, line 25, leave out '18(a)' and insert '18A(a)' .—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 2

PUBLICATION OF APPLICATIONS MADE UNDER

SECTION 22

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 67, in page 69, line 4, after 'a' insert 'daily'.
This is a simple amendment that responds to a point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). Originally it was tabled as amendment (a), but another, controversial amendment was also marked (a), and the two were confused. I promised to put the matter right on Report.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Perhaps I might be allowed a small moment of self-congratulation. This amendment is the only material alteration that I have made during the passage of the Bill. It may be a case of "Si monumentum requiris, circumspice."

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3

SCOTTISH LEGAL SERVICES OMBUDSMAN

Amendments made: No. 68, in page 69, line 25, at end insert—
'(2) Where a person appointed to the office of ombudsman ceases to hold that office otherwise than on the expiry of the term of office specified in his appointment, and it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right for that person to receive compensation, the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, make a payment to that person of such amount as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.'

No. 109, in page 69, line 29, leave out from 'remuneration' to end of line 30 and insert
'and as to compensation for loss of employment (which may take the form of pensions, allowances or gratuities).
4A. Neither the ombudsman nor his staff are, in such capacity, Crown servants.'—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 4

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 140, in page 70, line 17, leave out
'had a right of audience in both the Court of Session and the High Court of Judiciary'
and insert
'been admitted as a solicitor in Scotland'.
I cannot find the amendment—[Interruption.] It is obviously an interesting amendment of great importance. [Interruption.] I cannot find it and the House will have to bear with me for a moment. I have found it, and I am confirmed in my opinion that it is an interesting amendment about which the House will no doubt feel strongly. Unfortunately, it is not one that I can debate at any great length in the present circumstances. I shall briefly state my grievance, take it away and nurse it until another occasion.
I accuse the Minister—but not in any unparliamentary sense—of, if not fraud, at least a little sleight of hand. We are dealing with the right of a solicitor to be considered for a place on the bench of the Court of Session. When that was first mooted, I had the impression that any solicitor could be considered, provided that he had met the time qualification of one year in practice. It now appears that, in fact, he must have had right of audience in both the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary for the requisite number of years. In other words, he must be one of those strange hybrid animals—a solicitor—advocate. That is unduly restrictive.
Although it will not be common, it is possible that someone such as a senior partner in a big commercial practice, whose views on commercial law, company law and a whole range of issues are widely respected, and who would have the standing that might tempt his brother professionals to ask for his professional opinion, might aspire to that position. I hasten to add that I would never aspire to be, nor ever would be, in such a category. I am not sure that it would be right to say that, if such a person wished to aspire to what is, in many ways, the highest honour in his trade—a place on the bench of the Court of Session—he should have to go through such an odd, and at the moment untried, formula of gaining right of audience in the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary.
It may be unlikely that someone will be considered for the High Court bench who has not had direct Court of Session experience. However, the spirit behind the widening of the selection was that solicitors should at least be possible candidates and, in exceptional circumstances, might even be chosen. I understand that it is now possible for a solicitor to go to the shrieval bench and therefore come up that way rather than having had active life in the Court of Session.
I shall not press the amendment, but its intention was to make it clear that a solicitor was a solicitor under the new proposals, considered on his merits, who did not have to go through the hoop or over the hurdle of becoming a solicitor-advocate in the way described in the Bill. I do not expect the Minister to accept the amendment, but as we have a few minutes in hand I hope that he will explain why the Bill will rule out a large number of solicitors from consideration—many of whom, I suspect, are the most respected members of the profession, whom many of us might think to be the most appropriate for consideration.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Eligibility of criteria for appointment as a Court of Session judge was discussed in the Secretary of State's consultation paper issued in March 1989. As a result, it was suggested that the application of that principle to situations where solicitors had rights of audience in supreme courts would require the introduction of changes in statute. It was suggested that, if they had rights of audience for five years, they should be eligible. That was widely welcomed by those consulted, including the representative bodies concerned.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has proposed a major amendment, and in considering it we do not have the benefit of the views of all the different groups and organisations that have an interest in judicial appointments. The response to the consultations last year on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State did not suggest that his proposals relating to the eligibility of criteria for judicial appointments were over-restrictive. In fact, the Bill ensures that in future all lawyers, whether advocates or solicitors, who have served as sheriffs principal or sheriffs for five years or more, should be eligible for appointment as a senator of the Court of Justice.
The amendment not only has technical deficiencies, but more importantly it would serve to weaken the eligibility criteria for the most senior judicial appointments in Scotland. Therefore, reluctantly, I must say that I cannot accept it.

Mr. Dewar: The Minister is always a man of charity and I am grateful for the word "reluctantly" in his last sentence. I shall have to be content with that.
I hope that, as the new arrangements unfold—I concede that that will be over a number of years—the restrictions about which I have complained will be reassessed and, perhaps, a more generous and unreluctant view taken of my case.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 70, in page 70, line 35, at end insert
',with the consent of the Secretary of State, and'.

No. 71, in page 71, line 5, at beginning insert
'Subject to paragraph 7A below,'.

No. 72, in page 71, line 6, leave out
'or the High Court of Justiciary'.

No. 73, in page 71, line 12, at end insert—
'7A. A person appointed to be a temporary judge of the Court of Session shall, by virtue of such appointment, be a temporary Lord Commissioner of Justiciary in Scotland.'.

No. 74, in page 71, line 14, leave out
'of the Court of Session or the High Court of Justiciary'.

No. 75, in page 71, line 16, after 'Court' insert
'of Session or the High Court of Justiciary'.

No. 76, in page 71, line 18, leave out 'that' and insert 'either'.

No. 77, in page 71, line 21, leave out 'that' and insert 'the relevant'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 7

AMENDMENT OF ENACTMENTS

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 86, line 3, leave out '10' and insert '21'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This fulfils a commitment that I gave in Committee about time scales on licensing which I think will be acceptable to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 15, in page 86, line 7, leave out '10' and insert '21'.

No. 16, in page 86, line 10, leave out '21' and insert '28'.

No. 17, in page 86, line 14, leave out '21' and insert '28'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 86 line 36, after '64' insert—

'(a) in subsection (1), after the words "an entertainment licence" there shall be inserted the words ", a refreshment licence"; and
(b)'.

I can explain the amendment in more detail if hon. Members wish.

Amendment agreed to.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 78, in page 90, leave out lines 44 to 46.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 85,

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This amendment removes redundant references.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 95, in page 90, line 50, at end insert—

'The Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Act 1978

. In section 4 of the Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Act 1978 (which, amongst other things, gives the court powers to deal with failure to comply with community service order) there shall be added at the end the following subsection—
(3) The evidence of one witness shall, for the purposes of subsection (2) above, be sufficient evidence.".'.

No. 110, in page 91, leave out from beginning of line 33 to end of line 14 on page 92 and insert—

'(5) In section 26 of the 1980 Act (offence for solicitors to act as agents for unqualified persons)—

(a) in subsection (1)(c), at the beginning there shall be inserted "subject to subsection (4),";


(b) in subsection (1)(d), at the beginning there shall be inserted "subject to subsection (4),";
(c) in subsection (2), at the end there shall be inserted "or employed by a law centre."; and
(d) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—

"(4) Subsection (1)(c) and (d) shall not apply in relation to—

(a) writs relating to heritable or moveable property drawn or prepared upon the account of or for the profit of independent qualified conveyancers providing conveyancing services within the meaning of section 20 (interpretation of sections 14 to 19) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990; or
(b) papers to found or oppose an application for a grant of confirmation in favour of executors drawn or prepared upon the account of or for the profit of an executry practitioner or recognised financial institution providing executry services within the meaning of the said section 20.".'—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 111, in page 92, leave out line 17.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 87.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This amendment again honours a commitment that I gave in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 112, in page 92, line 22, at end insert 'providing conveyancing services'

No. 79, in page 92, line 36, at end insert—
'(7A) In section 42A (powers of Council where inadequate professional services alleged), at the end of subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(d) to direct the solicitor to pay to the client by way of compensation such sum, not exceeding £1,000, as the Council may specify.".'

No. 80, in page 93, line 7, at end insert '(a)'.

No. 81, in page 93, line 10, at end insert—
'and
(b) after subsection (2)(c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(d) to direct the solicitor to pay to the client by way of compensation such sum, not exceeding £1,000, as the Tribunal may specify.".'

No. 126, in page 93, line 22, at end insert—

'(11A) After section 56 there shall be inserted the following section—

Further provision as to compensation awards.

56A.—(1) The taking of any steps under section 42A(2) or 53A(2) shall not be founded upon in any proceedings for the purpose of showing that the solicitor in respect of whom the steps were taken was negligent.

(2) A direction under section 42A(2)(d) or 53A(2)(d) to a solicitor to pay compensation to a client shall not prejudice any right of that client to take proceedings against that solicitor for damages in respect of any loss which he alleges he has suffered as a result of that solicitor's negligence, and any sum directed to be paid to that client under either of those provisions may be taken into account in the computation of any award of damages made to him in any such proceedings.

(3) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend subsection (2)(d) of sections 42A and 53A by substituting for the sum for the time being specified in those provisions such other sum as he considers appropriate.

(4) Before making any such order the Secretary of State shall consult the Council.

(5) An order made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'

No. 83, in page 93, leave out lines 23 to 28 and insert—

'(12) In section 63 (penalties and time limit for prosecution of offences)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) for the words "level 3" there shall be substituted the words "level 4"; and
(ii) the words from "and to imprisonment" to the end shall cease to have effect; and

(b) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsections—

"(3) Where an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate and is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of—

(a) any director, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate; or
(b) any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,

he (as well as the body corporate) shall be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(4) Where an offence under this Act is committed by a partnership or by an unincorporated association (other than a partnership) and is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of a partner in the partnership or, as the case may be, a person concerned in the management or control of the association, he (as well as the partnership or association) shall be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to and punished accordingly.".'

No. 113, in page 93, line 29, leave out 'section 65(1)' and insert
'subsection (1) of section 65'.

No. 114, in page 93, line 31, leave out 'and' and insert—
' ""foreign lawyer" means a person who is not a solicitor or an advocate but who is a member, and entitled to practise as such, of a legal profession regulated within a jurisdiction outwith Scotland;";
(aa) after the definition of "judge" there shall be inserted—
law centre" means a body—

(a) established for the purpose of providing legal services to the public generally as well as to individual members of the public; and
(b) which does not distribute any profits made either to its members or otherwise, but reinvests any such profits for the purposes of the law centre;";

(ab) after the definition of "Lord President" there shall be inserted—
multi-disciplinary practice" means a body corporate or a partnership—

(a) having as one of its directors or, as the case may be, partners, a solicitor or an incorporated practice; and
(b) which offers services, including professional services such as are provided by individual solicitors, to the public; and
(c) where that solicitor or incorporated practice carries out, or supervises the carrying out of, any such professional services as may lawfully be carried out only by a solicitor;

multi-national practice" means—

(a) a partnership whose members are solicitors or incorporated practices and registered foreign lawyers; or
(b) a body corporate whose members include registered foreign lawyers, and membership of which is restricted to solicitors, incorporated practices, registered foreign lawyers and other multi-national practices;";

(ac) after the definition of "property" there shall be inserted—


registered foreign lawyer" means a foreign lawyer who is registered under section 60A;".'

No. 115, in page 93, line 35, at end insert—
'and
(c) in the definition of "unqualified person", after the word "person" there shall be inserted ", other than a multi-disciplinary practice,".'

No. 84, in page 94, leave out lines 17 to 21 and insert—
' "14A. In carrying out their duty under paragraph 14, the Tribunal may refrain from publishing any names, places or other facts the publication of which would, in their opinion, damage, or be likely to damage, the interests of persons other than—

(a) the solicitor against whom the complaint was made; or
(b) his partners; or
(c) his or their families,

but where they so refrain they shall publish their reasons for so doing.".'

No. 131, in page 95, line 17, at end insert—

'Companies Act 1985 (c. 6)

31A.—(l) The Companies Act 1985 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section 38(1) (appointment of attorney to execute deeds abroad), the words "under the law of England and Wales" shall cease to have effect.

(3) In section 39(3) (official seal for use abroad), the words "or, in the case of a company registered in Scotland, subscribed in accordance with section 36B," shall cease to have effect.

(4) In section 186 (share certificate to be evidence of title), the words "(or, in the case of a company registered in Scotland, subscribed in accordance with section 36B)" shall cease to have effect.

(5) In section 188(2) (issue and effect of share warrant to bearer), the words "(or, in the case of a company registered in Scotland, subscribed in accordance with section 36B)" shall cease to have effect.

(6) Subsection (2) of section 462 (power of company to create floating charges under Scots law) shall cease to have effect.'

No. 132, in page 95, line 26, at end insert—

'Insolvency Act 1986 (c. 45)

32A. Section 53(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (execution of instrument appointing receiver) shall cease to have effect.' —[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 116, in page 95, line 28, at beginning insert—
'In subsection (3) of section 4 (Scottish Legal Aid Fund) of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986—

(a) paragraph (a) shall cease to have effect; and
(b) in paragraph (c), after the word "property" there shall be inserted "(including money)".
(1A) .'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 117, 118, 119, 121, 122 and 123.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The first amendments are technical, but amendment No. 119 is a bit more substantial. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will be able, by regulation, to insist that an assisted person be represented in the supreme courts by

a solicitor with rights of audience there rather than by an advocate. That choice will be for the client alone and that will be followed.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 117, in page 95, line 28, leave out 'the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986' and insert 'that Act'.

No. 118, in page 96, line 9, at end insert—
'(4A) After subsection (2) of section 17 (contributions and payments out of property received) of that Act, there shall be inserted the following subsections—
(2A) Except in so far as regulations made under this section otherwise provide, any sum of money recovered under an award of or an agreement as to expenses in favour of any party in any proceedings in respect of which he is or has been in receipt of civil legal aid shall be paid to the Board.
(2B) Except in so far as regulations made under this section otherwise provide, where, in any proceedings, there is a net liability of the Fund on the account of any party, the amount of that liability shall be paid to the Board by that party, in priority to any other debts, out of any property (wherever situate) which is recovered or preserved for him—

(a) in the proceedings; or
(b) under any settlement to avoid them or to bring them to an end.".

(4B) Subsections (3) to (5) of that section shall cease to have effect.
(4C) In subsection (6) of that section, for the words "subsection (5)" there shall be substituted the words "subsections (2A) or (2B)".
(4D) In subsection (8) of that section, for the words from "subsection" to the end there shall be substituted the words "subsection (1) above and in section 33 of this Act to "fees and outlays" include references to sums which would have been payable to that solicitor if he had been so employed.".'

No. 119, in page 96, line 20, leave out from 'words' where it first appears to the end of line 21 and insert—
'", his counsel" there shall be substituted the words "or a solicitor holding rights of audience by virtue of section 25A (rights of audience) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, his counsel or such a solicitor".
(8A) In subsection (9)(b) of the said section 31, at the beginning there shall be inserted "Subject to subsection (11) below,".
(8B) At the end of the said section 31 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(11) Nothing in subsection (9)(b) above shall enable the Secretary of State to make regulations authorising the granting of legal aid only to solicitors holding rights of audience under section 25A (rights of audience) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980.".'.

No. 120, in page 96, line 26, at end insert—

'The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 (c. 41)

33A. In section 6(1) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 (definition of implicative gifts), for the words "mentioned in section 5(2) of this Act" there shall be substituted "on which, in respect of a person suspected of, or charged with, an offence to which section 1 of this Act relates, the warrant to arrest and commit was granted, or a restraint order was made (whichever first occurs).".'—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 8

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 85, in page 97, leave out lines 24 to 26.

No. 86, in page 98, line 10, column 3, at end insert—

'Section 31(3).'

No. 87, in page 98, leave out lines 11 and 12.

No. 88, in page 98, leave out line 14.

No. 133, in page 98, line 46, at end insert—

'1985 c. 6.
The Companies Act 1985.
In section 38 (1), the words "under the law of England and Wales".




In section 39(3), the words "or, in the case of a company registered in Scotland, subscribed in accordance with section 36B".




In section 186, the words "(or, in the case of a company registered in Scotland, subscribed in accordance with section 36B)".




In section 188(2), the words "(or, in the case of a company registered in Scotland, subscribed in accordance with section 36B)".




Section 462(2).'

No. 134, in page 98, line 53, at end insert—

'1986 c. 45.
The Insolvency Act 1986.
Section 53(3).'

No. 121, in page 99, line 2, column 3, at beginning insert—

'In section 4(3), paragraph (a) and, in paragraph (b), the words "a court".'

No. 122, in page 99, line 4, leave out '(12)' and insert '(3) to (5)'.

No. 123, page 99, line 10, at end insert—

'1988 c. 34
The Legal Aid Act 1988. In paragraph 3 of Schedule 4, sub-paragraphs (b) and (c).

No. 135, in page 99, line 12, at end insert—

'1989 c. 40
The Companies Act 1989.
Section 130(3).




In Schedule 17, paragraphs 1(2), 2(4), 8 and 10.'

—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

New schedule

SUPERVISED ATTENDANCE ORDERS: FURTHER PROVISIONS

1.—(1) A court shall not make a supervised attendance order in respect of any offender unless—

(a) the court has been notified by the Secretary of State that arrangements exist for persons who reside in the locality in which the offender resides, or will be residing when the order comes into force, to carry out the requirements of such an order;
(b) the court is satisfied that provision can be made under the arrangements mentioned in paragraph (a) above for the offender to carry out such requirements.

(2) Before making a supervised attendance order, the court shall explain to the offender in ordinary language—


(a) the purpose and effect of the order and in particular the obligations on the offender as specified in paragraph 3 below;
(b) the consequences which may follow under paragraph 4 below if he fails to comply with any of those requirements; and
(c) that the court has, under paragraph 5 below, the power to review the order on the application either of the offender or of an officer of the local authority in whose area the offender for the time being resides.

(3) The Secretary of State may by order direct that subsection (2) of section (Supervised attendance orders as alternative to imprisonment on fine default) of this Act shall be amended by substituting, for any number of hours specified in that subsection such other number of hours as may be specified in the order; and an order under this subsection, may in making such amendment specify a different such numbers of hours for different classes of case.

(4) An order under paragraph (3) above shall be made by statutory instrument, but no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

2.—(l) A supervised attendance order shall—

(a) specify the locality in which the offender resides or will be residing when the order comes into force; and
(b) require the local authority in whose area the locality specified under paragraph (a) above is situated to appoint or assign a supervising officer.

(2) Where, whether on the same occasion or on separate occasions, an offender is made subject to more than one supervised attendance order, the court may direct that the requirements specified in any of those orders shall be concurrent with or additional to those specified in any other of those orders, but so that at no time shall the offender have an outstanding number of hours during which he must carry out the requirements of these orders in excess of the largest number specified in section (Supervised attendance orders as alternative to imprisonment on fine default) of this Act.

(3) Upon making a supervised attendance order the court shall—

(a) give a copy of the order to the offender;
(b) send a copy of the order to the director of social work of the local authority in whose area the offender resides or will be residing when the order comes into force; and
(c) where it is not the appropriate court, send a copy of the order (together with such documents and information relating to the case as are considered useful) to the clerk of the appropriate court.

3.—(1) An offender in respect of whom a supervised attendance order is in force shall report to the supervising officer and notify him without delay of any change of address or in the times, if any, at which he usually works.

(2) Subject to paragraph 5(1) below, instructions given under a supervised attendance order shall be carried out during the period of twelve months beginning with the date of the order; but, unless revoked, the order shall remain in force until the offender has carried out the instructions given under it for the number of hours specified in it.

(3) The instructions given by the supervising officer under the order shall, so far as practicable, be such as to avoid any conflict with the offender's religious beliefs and any interference with the times, if any, at which he normally works or attends a school or other educational establishment.

4.—(1) If at any time while a supervised attendance order is in force in respect of any offender it appears to the appropriate court, on evidence on oath from the supervising officer, that that offender has failed to comply with any of the requirements of paragraph 3 above or of the order (including any failure satisfactorily to carry out any instructions which he has been given by the supervising officer under the order), the court may issue a warrant for the arrest of that offender, or may, if it thinks fit, instead of issuing a warrant in the first


instance issue a citation requiring the offender to appear before that court at such time as may be specified in the citation.

(2) If it is proved to the satisfaction of the court before which an offender is brought or appears in pursuance of sub-paragraph (1) above that he has failed without reasonable excuse to comply with any of the requirements of paragraph 3 above or of the order (including any failure satisfactorily to carry out any instructions which he has been given by the supervising officer under the order), the court may—

(a) revoke the order and impose such period of imprisonment as could, in respect of the original default or failure, have been imposed by the court which made the order if the order had not been made; or
(b) subject to section (Supervised attendance orders as alternative to imprisonment on default) of this Act and paragraph 2(2) above, vary the number of hours specified in the order.

(3) The evidence of one witness shall, for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above, be sufficient evidence.

5.—(1) Where a supervised attendance order is in force in respect of any offender and, on the application of that offender or of the supervising officer, it appears to the appropriate court that it would be in the interests of justice to do so having regard to circumstances which have arisen since the order was made, that court may—

(a) extend, in relation to the order, the period of twelve months specified in paragraph 3 above;
(b) subject to section (Supervised attendance orders as alternative to imprisonment on default) of this Act and paragraph 2(2) above, vary the number of hours specified in the order;
(c) revoke the order; or
(d) revoke the order and impose such period of imprisonment as could, in respect of the original default or failure, have been imposed by the court which made the order if the order had not been made.

(2) If the appropriate court is satisfied that the offender proposes to change, or has changed, his residence from the locality for the time being specified under paragraph 2(1)(a) above to another locality and—

(a) that court has been notified by the Secretary of State that arrangements exist for persons who reside in that other locality to carry out instructions under supervised attendance orders; and
(b) it appears to that court that provision can be made under those arrangements for him to carry out instructions under the order;

that court may, and on application of the supervising officer shall, amend the order by substituting that other locality for the locality for the time being specified in the order; and the provisions of section (Supervised attendance orders as alternative to imprisonment on fine default) of this Act and of this Schedule shall apply to the order as amended.

(3) Where the court proposes to exercise its powers under sub-paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (d) above otherwise than on the application of the offender, it shall issue a citation requiring him to appear before the court and, if he fails to appear, may issue a warrant for his arrest.

6.—(l) The Secretary of State may make rules for regulating the carrying out of the requirements of supervised attendance orders.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, rules under this section may—

(a) limit the number of hours during which the requirements of an order are to be met on any one day;
(b) make provision as to the reckoning of time for the purposes of the carrying out of these requirements;
(c) make provision for the payment of travelling and other expenses in connection with the carrying out of these requirements;
(d) provide for records to be kept of what has been done by any person carrying out these requirements.

(3) Rules under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

7. The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament each year, or incorporate in annual reports he already makes, a report of the operation of section (Supervised attendance orders as alternative to imprisonment on fine default) of this Act and this Schedule.

8. In section 27 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (supervision of persons put on probation, released from prison or subject to community service orders)—

(a) in subsection (1)(b) there shall be inserted at the end the following "; and

(iv) without prejudice to paragraphs (i) to (iii) above, persons in their area who are subject to supervised attendance orders under section (Supervised attendance orders as alternative to imprisonment on fine default) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990.";
(b) for the words "probation and community service scheme", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words "probation, community service and supervised attendance scheme".

9.—(1) In this Schedule—
the appropriate court", in relation to a supervised attendance order, means the court having jurisdiction in the locality for the time being specified in the order under paragraph 2(1)(a) above, being a sheriff or district court according to whether the order has been made by a sheriff or a district court, but in a case where the order has been made by a district court and there is no district court in that locality, the sheriff court;
local authority" and "supervising officer" have the same meanings respectively as in section (Supervised attendance orders as alternative to imprisonment on fine default) of this Act.

(2) Except where the context otherwise requires, expressions used in this Schedule and in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 have the same meanings in this Schedule as in that Act.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

—[Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Title

Amendments made: No. 127, in line 9, after 'licensing:' insert
'to make special provision in relation to the giving of evidence by children in criminal trials;'.

No. 128, in line 9, after 'licensing:' insert
'to empower a sheriff court to try offences committed in the district of a different sheriff court in the same sheriffdom;'.

No. 96, in line 11, after 'prison' insert
'and for supervised attendance as an alternative to imprisonment on default in paying a fine'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 89, in line 15, leave out
'in relation to homelessness due to risk of violence'.
This amendment will ensure that the long title more accurately reflects the amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 that are included in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Dewar: There will be one or two Third Reading speeches, but they will all be marked by their brevity.
I look back with some satisfaction on the Bill, but it will remain something of a curiosity in the annals of Scottish parliamentary procedure. Never were so many columns of Hansard filled in so short a time.
The situation now is rather different, but it is appropriate that for most of this evening the Under-Secretary of State laboured on alone, accompanied only by the Secretary of State. I say entirely appropriate because, in a sense, they were alone for almost the entire Committee stage.
The Under-Secretary of State gets tired of people paying tribute to him, but I must do so on this occasion. He ploughed on with remarkable courage, often sounding like Bertie Wooster, but in a sense as unflappable as Jeeves. Never have I seen briefs put to such determined use when all round him there was chaos and confusion. At times—this is a factual observation—the Committee Room looked like the last act of "The Duchess of Malfi", with bodies everywhere. We saw the decrowning of the chairman of the Scottish Conservative party and we saw blood on every side, but in the middle of it all the Under-Secretary of State kept going, and for that he deserves some credit.
I hope that no one will accuse me of over-complacency, but Opposition Members—I include my friends in other parties, particularly the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and, an honorary blood brother for this occasion only, the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), who I believe in the many votes taken in Committee voted for the Government only once, not by mistake but as a matter of principle, and we all allow the hon. and learned Gentleman his occasional aberrations of principle—did good work. I cannot remember any Bill that has left our hands more changed and more lightened. A great deal of rubbish had gone and many good things had been added, for which we can claim some credit.
I also want to thank those from outside this place who helped us. It may not be proper to mention them in detail, but a number of bodies have laboured long and hard, perhaps above all the Law Society. Many others, such as the Scottish Consumer Council, were also involved and their help, although not always uncritically received, was invaluable. Their contribution to the law of Scotland may not be major, but the Bill makes a better contribution to it than it otherwise would have done.
A number of issues of real importance have had to go by the board. I have explained this before, but I stress it again. The Opposition were implacably opposed to what was suggested, but it was impossible in the ludicrous time scale suggested to look at the matters adequately—I am thinking particularly of changes in the divorce laws, licensing laws and some good ideas on reforming fines in the criminal courts, along with a number of other matters. I hope that we will have an opportunity to return to those before too long.
I understand that there is a possibility next Session of legislation on parole. The Under-Secretary of State, probably wisely, remained silent when I said that I hoped that would be a Scottish Bill, not a throwaway Scottish insert in a United Kingdom Criminal Justice Bill. The

Kincraig report contained some serious propositions and I hope that if we are to implement some of them, as we should, we will do so on the basis of Scottish legislation.
Perhaps that would give us an opportunity to return to some of the issues, or perhaps there should be another Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill—I hope that the Secretary of State does not blanch at the thought—before too long. It has all been good fun, and—on a more serious note—rather a useful exercise.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: The Leader of the House will remember that the late F. E. Smith—late at night and after some appallingly boring and long-drawn-out speeches—was asked to give a vote of thanks. He said "Before I came here I prepared two speeches, one long and one short, and because of the lateness of the hour I intend to give them both." I intend to give neither. All that I want to say is that I hope that our Government and our party will not break the rule that rules should not be multiplied and that legislation of any kind is a bad thing.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: When we set out to consider the Bill, few of us realised that it would prove such an effective springboard for the career of Lord Sanderson of Bowden, or that it would have such a dramatic effect on unemployment statistics in the city of Edinburgh. Had we known that those dramas were being enacted as we went through our routine day-by-day examination of its clauses in Committee, it might have added a certain piquancy to our proceedings, and might even have persuaded the press and television to take yet more interest in our efforts to improve the law of Scotland.
One thing is certainly true: putting charities, reform of the legal profession and licensing law reform into a Bill, and then adding what were genuinely miscellaneous provisions, meant that many important issues failed to receive the time and the detailed intellectual consideration that they undoubtedly deserved.
The Under-Secretary of State deserves our congratulations on his indefatigability and his continuing courtesy to all sides. Sometimes it seemed that a greater strain was being put on his courtesy by those behind him than by those who were nominally opposing him. However, he survived.
I look forward with considerable pleasure to accounts of our proceedings as they will appear in biographies which I know are yet to be written. The role that some people played in the proceedings, especially in Committee, will be marked in passages of such colour and verve that they will come to be regarded as significant contributions to English fiction.
No doubt the Bill will pass into law. It contains many good things, but I fear that it also contains a number of bad laws, the lack of quality of which will be properly explored and made clear only when some of the measures that we have passed into law are put into practice. Undoubtedly, it has been a learning experience for all of us. I do not think that anyone will wish to oppose Third Reading at this stage, but it can certainly be said that the Bill is now in rather better condition that it deserved.

Mr. Dalyell: As one who has been present for the past two days' debate on the Floor of the House but was not a member of the Committee, I should like to say thank you to my parliamentary colleagues of all parties who have taken part in our discussions, as well as to the officials and to the Law Society of Scotland for having improved, in many respects, the lot of our Scottish constituents.

Dr. Godman: This is the second Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill in which I have been involved; I hope that a considerable time will elapse before I am called back by the Whips to take part in a third. I only hope that, if I am placed on the Standing Committee on another Bill in the future, the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) is also placed on it.
I should like to express my thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for the many civilities and courtesies that he has extended to me, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House. I am heartened by the measures concerning the introduction of closed-circuit television to deal with the evidence given by children in criminal proceedings; however, I am deeply disappointed that the same Minister was unwilling to listen to my argument concerning the use of video-recorded interviews as evidence in criminal proceedings. I fear that, with the advent of the Gracious Speech on 7 November, we will find that we are slipping further behind English legislation in this respect. Nevertheless, with the Under-Secretary's involvement, we have improved the law of Scotland as it affects the interests of young children who are caught up in such horrendous circumstances, and I am grateful to him for that measure at least.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Those of us who served on the Standing Committee will have many memories that will no doubt be recounted through the ages, not so much because of the contents of the Bill as because of the nature of its passage. The memories include the summoning of members of the Scottish Grand Committee in the Royal High school in Edinburgh to be given talks behind the scenes and long walks up and down the Committee Corridor by the Secretary of State for Scotland and various Ministers with their own Back Benchers. Judging

by the expressions on their faces, the Secretary of State sometimes wished that there was a perpendicular structure at the foot of the passage over which he could tip some of his own Back Benchers.
More seriously, let me say that there have been improvements as a result of the Bill; but the way in which it was treated was, in many ways, an insult to the need for law reform in Scotland. Certainly—as one who sees the institution of the Scottish legal system as a major bastion of Scottish nationhood and as an institution of which we are rightly proud—I hope that any future miscellaneous law reform Bills will be just that, and that we shall be able to look in more detail and more effectively at many of the issues that have been left untouched.
I too thank the Minister for his abiding courtesy throughout the many hours in which we have debated. I also congratulate him on being a member of a team that has at least lived up to one of the Prime Minister's requirements. I refer to her request for a "green" image: what would have been a very large statute has been reduced during our proceedings to a much smaller one.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Let me pay tribute to those hon. Members who served on the Committee for more than 80 hours, to the Law Society of Scotland, to the Scottish Consumer Council and other bodies and, of course, to the officials who worked ceaselessly around the clock to ensure that I gave accurate answers to the points raised by Opposition Members. I have no regrets about the considerable number of amendments: I believe that that is parliamentary democracy operating at its best.
Part I of the Bill will help charities by giving them much more information. Part II will help to introduce an element of competition to assist the consumer and will also open up access to the supreme courts for solicitors for the first time in Scottish legal history. Part III will introduce important licensing reforms and stiffen the criteria for late-night extensions, which is a law-and-order measure. Part IV has been discussed extensively today; perhaps the two most important measures concern supervised attendance and video links, which will go a long way towards protecting children.
I thank hon. Members for the part that they have played in the Bill. I believe that it will prove a significant measure for us to look back on in years to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Caldey Island Bill

Not amended (in Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

ELECTIONS

Amendment made, in page 1, line 23, leave out from 'a' to first 'of' in line 7 on page 2 and insert
'person to be included in the registers of parliament and local government electors published for the years beginning with 16th February 1990 and 16th February 1991—

(a) subsections (1) to (3) above shall be deemed to have been in force on 10th October 1989 and 10th October 1990 (the qualifying dates in relation to those registers);
(b) the reference in section 11(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to the correction of a register shall include a reference to any addition made by virtue of this section; and
(c) the relevant provisions'—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]

Bill reported, with an amendment.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
In Committee, some concern was expressed about clause 2, and I am happy to inform the House of our decision that the Caldey community should become liable for community charge as from 1 April 1991, and that it should also become liable to non-domestic rates as from the same date.
We have also succeeded in devising a good scheme to provide transitional relief for the community. I believe that, on the whole, the islanders will find the total package quite acceptable. Therefore, I have pleasure in commending the Bill to the House.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I thank the Minister for his courteous response, as always, to the substantial point that we made in Committee about the imposition of poll tax before the Bill could be passed. I do not imagine that the islanders of Caldey will be desperately pleased at having the poll tax imposed on them in any shape or form, but at least we have saved them from being taxed before the relevant legislation could be enacted, for the Minister has now confirmed that the poll tax will not take effect there before next year.
The Minister said that the Government have devised "a good scheme" to provide the equivalent of transitional relief. We have already made the point that some difficulty arises because there is no previous rating base from which to work. However, the Minister seems to have confirmed his promise to do something about transitional relief, so perhaps he will give us an idea of what it will be.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The scheme that we intend to establish will require the islanders, each year in a four-year transitional period, to pay a fixed percentage of that year's community charge for standard spending—or CCSS. That percentage, which I propose to set at 80 per cent. in 1991–92, will increase over the four-year period so that the islanders will move smoothly into a regime of full charges in 1995–96—the same year that full charges will be payable in the rest of Wales as the general transitional relief scheme comes to an end.
The effect of my proposals into 1991–92 is that, as the Welsh CCSS for next year is £228, the islanders will each pay 80 per cent. of that figure, or £182–and so will in effect receive relief of £46 per head. If the charge actually set is lower than the CCSS, then the islanders will each pay only 80 per cent. of that lower charge. However, if the relevant authorities' spend is such that the charge set exceeds £228, each islander will pay 80 per cent. of the CCSS plus the amount by which the charge set exceeds the CCSS. Therefore, Dyfed county council and South Pembrokeshire district council will want to set their budgets in such a way as to enable the islanders to gain maximum benefit from the scheme that I have described.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 4.

Division No. 320]
[6.52 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Fallon, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Favell, Tony


Amess, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Arbuthnot, James
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Fishburn, John Dudley


Ashby, David
Fisher, Mark


Aspinwall, Jack
Flynn, Paul


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Forth, Eric


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Freeman, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
French, Douglas


Bevan, David Gilroy
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bidwell, Sydney
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodlad, Alastair


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bottomley, Peter
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grist, Ian


Bowis, John
Ground, Patrick


Brazier, Julian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hague, William


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hanley, Jeremy


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Butcher, John
Harris, David


Butler, Chris
Hawkins, Christopher


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hill, James


Carrington, Matthew
Hind, Kenneth


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Howells, Geraint


Conway, Derek
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunter, Andrew


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jack, Michael


Cran, James
Janman, Tim


Cryer, Bob
Jessel, Toby


Curry, David
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dicks, Terry
Kilfedder, James


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dover, Den
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Dunn, Bob
Kirkhope, Timothy


Durant, Tony
Knapman, Roger






Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Pawsey, James


Lang, Ian
Portillo, Michael


Lawrence, Ivan
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Price, Sir David


Leighton, Ron
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Lightbown, David
Rhodes James, Robert


Lilley, Peter
Riddick, Graham


Lord, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


McCartney, Ian
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


McCrindle, Robert
Sackville, Hon Tom


McFall, John
Shaw, David (Dover)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Shelton, Sir William


Madel, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Malins, Humfrey
Sims, Roger


Mans, Keith
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Speller, Tony


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Michael, Alun
Stern, Michael


Miller, Sir Hal
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mills, Iain
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Strang, Gavin


Moate, Roger
Sumberg, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Summerson, Hugo


Morrison, Sir Charles
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Moss, Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Mudd, David
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Murphy, Paul
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Nelson, Anthony
Wheeler, Sir John


Neubert, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wood, Timothy


Norris, Steve
Yeo, Tim


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Oppenheim, Phillip



Paice, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Patnick, Irvine
Mr. Neil Hamilton and


Patten, Rt Hon John
Mr. John M. Taylor.


NOES


Madden, Max



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Mr. Ron Davies and


Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mr. Rhodri Morgan.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you could confirm that the Caldey Island Bill which has just been given a Third Reading was a Bill to extend the franchise, and some hon. Members were here to vote on it, but it is a matter of regret that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett)—the area concerned—was apparently unable to make the Lobby in time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): As the hon. Member is aware, hon. Members' attendance in the House has nothing whatsoever to do with the Chair.

Heathrow Express Railway Bill [Lords]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Promoters of the Heathrow Express Railway Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;

That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;

That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: I support the motion standing in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means that further consideration of the Heathrow Express Railway Bill should be carried over to the next Session of Parliament. Hon. Members may know that the Bill has already been through its stages in the other place. Indeed, throughout discussions, there have been petitioners against the Bill, but at no point have they objected to the concept of what it seeks to do. The Bill was deposited as far back as November 1988, but at no stage in its proceedings has it been delayed or objected to, other than delays caused by the pressure of Bills, which has made it impossible for the Bill to have a Second Reading before the Summer recess started at the end of July.
The Bill aims to provide a straightforward and basic service. During discussions in the Opposed Private Bill Committee in the other place, some substantial changes were made, which I hope will be to the benefit of the people who will use the link and to those who live in the area it will pass through, or who represent it.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that it would be very unfortunate if the Bill were not allowed to complete its stages, as it satisfies an important requirement.

Mr. Harry Greenway: My hon. Friend says that the Bill will benefit constituents such as mine who live in the area through which the express train will pass. That may be so, but I have not yet received the assurances which I sought from the promoters that the train would stop at least twice a day in Ealing.
If the train cannot be stopped at Greenford, which would be better still, I would settle for a stop at Ealing


Broadway in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young)—at least twice a day, and more often if possible. The promoters have made certain noises about that, as if to say that they will make some concessions to the good citizens of Ealing and the surrounding areas, but so far nothing concrete has come from them. Could my hon. Friend give me some assurance on that matter?

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: As one expects, my hon. Friend speaks with great fluency on a matter that concerns his constituents. No one is a more doughty fighter on behalf of his constituents than he. If he will bear with me for a moment, however, I shall endeavour to deal with the point that he made about stopping trains on the link. It is a matter of concern not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) but also to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and others.
At this stage I want to establish the Bill's credentials—how far it has come and how it has been held up by events that are not directly related to the arguments that might he deployed when considering the clauses. The Bill is jointly promoted and jointly financed by Heathrow Airport Ltd., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of British Airports Authority and British Rail. The Bill aims to satisfy a real need—a fast, dedicated service between the capital and its principal airport. That is in line with thinking throughout the rest of Europe.
Many might reasonably ask why such a service has not been provided before this. I am among those who believe that we should have had something along these lines a long time ago. The Bill is a direct response to the Government's White Paper of 1985 that dealt with airport policy. The Heathrow surface access study, commissioned by the Department of Transport, followed in 1987. An evaluation of the consultations on that document followed in June 1988. Immediately after those consultations had been brought to a successful conclusion, the Bill was deposited—in November 1988. It is in response to a direct demand by all those concerned. No time has been wasted by those who wish to provide the service.
The underground service, the airbus, cars and taxis provide other means of getting to Heathrow airport, but those of us who know this part of England well recognise that road congestion is a great problem. A dedicated service would therefore be a great bonus. It would be a premium service. The promoters are seeking by means of the Bill to provide a fast premium service to enable travellers, who are prepared to pay a fare of approximately £6, to have fast transport straight into the airport.

Sir Alan Glyn: It will, of course, provide a very good service, but is my hon. Friend aware that most people want to travel by car to the airport and that the new service will not relieve the congestion on the M4, as has been suggested?

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend uses the M4 to reach his constituency. Although I use it a great deal, he must use it more than I do. I realise that it is a very crowded route, but that applies to almost every other motorway that runs into and out of London. It surely cannot be denied that we need the best possible public service links from the capital to the airport if we are to alleviate the problem to which my hon. Friend has just referred.

Mr. Robert Adley: I know that my hon. Friend is an avid reader of all my publications. Therefore, I am sure that he will have read in bed "Tunnel Vision", in which I have tried to deal with the problem. I stress in particular the need for a west-facing link. If I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope to be able to refer to it and to deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn). The contents of the Bill deal only with traffic from London, although that is not clear from the long title. The procedural point that I wish to put to my hon. Friend is this: is he of the opinion that, if the promoters succeed in obtaining the agreement of the House to this carry-over motion, they will be amenable to some of the proposals that may emerge during the debate?

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend has made an important point. He is an acknowledged expert on these matters. It leads me straight to the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North and others: that the link with Heathrow should not be unique to that service, and that others should be able to take advantage of the line that will start at Paddington. I have to make the point, which applies to hon. Members with constituencies in Wales and elsewhere, that, although the promoters are seeking, by means of the Bill, powers to construct the basic route, they have not closed their minds to the point that has just been made by my hon. Friend. They have not disregarded, either, the pleas that have been made by other hon. Members. When the line is in operation, all sorts of options can be examined. However, we are considering a Bill that provides only a basic service.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: So the answer is no.

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: I am not so sure that the hon. Gentleman is right about that. If one were coming from Cardiff, or from anywhere else in Wales, which I know extremely well, one would probably be better off to go to Paddington and pick up the dedicated line to Heathrow rather than have to face all the confusion and problems that could exist—I do not say that they would exist—with stopping trains of any sort.
Another fundamental point is that, following the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about London's east-west crosslink, there will be occasions when people from the eastern side of the capital will want to take advantage of a train that goes straight into the airport. British Rail and the British Airports Authority have made it clear that they are anxious to look at that point. The important point, however, is that the time scale of the two projects is totally different. The airport link with which we are dealing this evening is designed to be operational by 1994, whereas the east-west crosslink is unlikely to be available until 1999—a five-year gap.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I promise my hon. Friend that I shall not persist with my interruptions, so I hope that he will be kind enough to allow me this one. My hon. Friend is, I know, an honourable man. However, he is asking the House to accept the good faith of the promoters and to agree in due course to the construction of the line. He says that, when it is operational, the promoters will consider


pleas made by others, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and myself, for a proper stop at Ealing at certain times of the day.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. We are at the commencement of the debate. I must remind the House that this is a carry-over motion. We are not debating the arguments for and against the Bill. I hope that hon. Members will keep in mind the fact that this is a narrow procedural motion.

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your ruling.

Mr. Greenway: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman had completed what he wanted to say. He was going off the rails in a very big way.

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: We must bear in mind that this is not a Second Reading debate, but I hope that I carry the House with me when I say that a Second Reading debate will be needed on a future occasion. I have taken note, however, of my hon. Friend's point.
There are still 15 petitioners against the Bill. According to the motion on the Order Paper, those petitions will be carried over to the new Session.
As I pointed out at the outset, the petitioners have no objection in general to the concept of the rail link that is being promoted. They are concerned about individual special interests which, hopefully, can be discussed in Committee if the Bill is sufficiently lucky to be given a Second Reading.
It is worth remembering that the original Bill introduced in the other place conceived the likelihood of an overhead rail viaduct across the M4 and into airport terminals 3 and 4. As a result of the discussions in the opposed Committee in the other place, the promoters have decided to go under that motorway and, hopefully, improve the environmental appearance of the operation and meet the important points made by the objectors. As a result of that decision, they have probably added about £25 million to the cost. Therefore, we have already seen in discussions on the Bill that substantial changes can be made.

Mr. Terry Dicks: My hon. Friend mentioned an increase of £25 million. The paper produced by the promoters mentions the figure of £12 million. I want to help my hon. Friend and ensure that he has got the figures right, because we should not give the wrong information in this debate.

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: The figure I have is £25 million. If my hon. Friend has another figure, we must discuss that later. However, if one were to look at the possibility of burying the line still further, we would be looking at a further increase of about £10 million, which would have a detrimental effect on the fare structure to which I have referred.
I hope that the House will agree that this is an important matter and that it should receive further consultation and discussion. It should be allowed to have a Second Reading during the next Session and then proceed to its Committee and other stages. Therefore, I commend the motion.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I must plead a constituency interest in this matter and remind the House that I am a former railway worker. I know every inch of the railway. If we go back far enough, I was a goods guard and shunter. When the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) made a plea for a stop at Ealing Common, it reminded me of someone who asked me whether a train stopped at Paddington. I said, "Blimey, madam, if it doesn't, there won't 'alf be a row." I support a stop at Ealing Broadway, and my constituents want a stop at Southall. In that part of my constituency there is a large Indian community and many employees of Heathrow airport. Of course, it is for the Bill's promoters to decide whether they want to resist the idea of stops. It might contradict the title of the Bill.
I want more information about the speed of the trains, because they will fundamentally affect my constituents in west Ealing. Already work is being undertaken on track laying in conjunction with the new high-speed train. Some of the houses near that area are nearly 100 years old and already suffer vibration from the existing services. In some of the houses, pictures jump about on the walls. A high-speed service to Heathrow at 15-minute intervals will not do much to improve their lives. I understand that British Rail has had a discussion with local residents. Those residents have said that it is the last thing they want, since there is about 25 ft. between the back of houses and the railway track, and the embankment is to be raised to bedroom height. I do not think that many hon. Members would want to live in that part of the London borough of Ealing.
I must take this opportunity to spell out some of the worries of my constituents. However, in accordance with the spirit in which the hon. Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) introduced the Bill, I must say that in general terms there is a welcome for the idea.

Mr. Dicks: Will the hon. Gentleman say exactly where in his constituency the line rises to the height of windows? I bow to his expertise on the railways but I was under the impression that that would happen as the train was leaving Hayes, not Southall.

Mr. Bidwell: I used to be a resident of Hayes and this matter never worried me when I lived there, so the hon. Gentleman probably knows more about it than I do. Although I often motor and walk around that area, I am sure that he knows more than I do about the spur extension near his constituency and across Stockley industrial estate.
There was a derailment last year very close to the houses I have mentioned, but miraculously there was no loss of life. An express train from Oxford to Paddington hit a piece of rail which it was thought may have been left by vandals, although that has never been proved. When such things occur, residents adjacent to the line must be fearful, especially with the prospect of increased traffic, even though on a quieter track.
Nobody has told me that they are powerfully opposed to the idea, and I would expect British Rail, backed up by the British Airports Authority—which is rolling in money—to be generous if the question of compensation for my constituents arises in the future. I am sure that they will want to be generous, because it is not simply a matter of increased use of the existing track with traditional express


trains to Reading, south Wales and so on. If the enterprise is to be thought to be worthwhile, they will want a service of Gatwick-Victoria proportions.
I promised that I would raise this matter. I think that there will be further consultation with British Rail, and the British Airports Authority should be present at such consultations. They should look further at the worries and fears of those in my constituency who will be affected. As far as I know, no one will suffer such oppression, although I am sure that my colleague, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), will tell us differently. The old houses I have mentioned must be considered seriously. If they are not, I shall lead a protest greater than has been known hitherto.

Sir John Wheeler: I welcome the principle of the motion and the potential progress of the Bill. I welcome the introduction of the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) who is standing in for my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) who has ultimate charge of the progress of the Bill on behalf of the promoters. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South has been particularly helpful to Westminster city council in recognising my constituents' special concerns because of the proximity of Paddington to the residential community.
If the House is minded to pass the motion, I hope that in future greater consideration will be given to the environmental aspect of the Bill as it affects the city of Westminster. My council has asked me to make clear that it is concerned about the impact that traffic may have should the Bill progress. Much growth is already expected in traffic movements to the A40 and the M40 extension, growth is predicted in general traffic and railway patronage of Paddington and there are estimates of a growth of traffic to Heathrow.

Mr. Adley: I fully understand and support what my hon. Friend is saying. Does he agree not only that his constituents are entitled to the protection for which he is asking but that he is entitled to suggest—if he does not do so, I will, and he might agree with me—that environmental expenditure to alleviate the problems faced by people because of railway schemes should be funded in exactly the same way as environmental expenditure is provided to alleviate problems created by road schemes? If there is an environmental problem, the taxpayer should pay, not the promoters of the Bill.

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, but it is not for me to express an opinion on the merits of his argument. That is, perhaps, for elsewhere or for another time in this Chamber.
My support for the principle of the Bill and the motion rests on the assumption that the promoters will continue to consider the traffic and environmental impact in the city of Westminster. In particular, they will want to focus their attention on access to Paddington station via what is described as
a sub-standard ramp off Bishop's bridge road which requires cars to stop and proceed at 4 mph.
I am advised that considerable progress is being made by the promoters to satisfy the council and particularly residential environmental groups such as the south-east

Bayswater residents association. Should that progress continue to be made, I have no doubt that the Bill will be greatly welcomed.

Mr. Peter Snape: What is the view of the hon. Gentleman and his council about the existing underground connections at Paddington? Does he feel that an additional 6 million passengers through Paddington main line station may cause enormous difficulties unless underground facilities are considerably improved?

Sir John Wheeler: That, again, goes beyond my ability to comment tonight and is a matter for elsewhere.
The Bill is greatly affected by the proposal to provide the east-west cross way, which may have the advantage of reducing potential vehicular traffic to Paddington railway station. That announcement impacts favourably on the environmental aspect of the Bill and I very much hope, therefore, that the motion will be supported tonight.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I am uncertain whether to support the motion and will therefore need certain assurances from the sponsor of the Bill before reaching a decision.
I need not explain why a Welshman should speak to the Bill or seek those assurances. Paddington, with which this expressway will connect, is important not only to my personal life, given the amount of time that I spend going to and from it, but to the commercial and business community of south Wales. High-speed access to Paddington station is a vital factor in the industrial and commercial development of the Principality.
The best architectural sight in London is Paddington from a departing train. I say that not as a personal whim but because that station and the line to south Wales play a significant role in the economic well-being of south Wales. If, therefore, there is to be any disruption, even for a short period, to the high-speed link between London and south Wales—I shall draw the attention of the House to that possibility in a minute—it will be a matter of profound concern not only for hon. Members and their personal convenience but for the economic and commercial development of the Principality.
A vivid example that has concerned us about key life-line communication links is the state of the Severn bridge. The fact that it has been in a state of repair, refurbishment or alteration for a long time has had an important impact on attracting industry and commerce to the Principality. We therefore have every right to be worried, and before supporting the motion I shall need assurances from the sponsor of the Bill about the nature and character of the works and the impact that a new expressway might have on the speed with which the main 125 service from south Wales travels in and out of Paddington.
Let me explain some of my basic worries, which were not raised on Second Reading or Third Reading in the other place. Following an inquiry with the Private Bill Office in the other place, I do not believe that they were the subject of detailed discussion or cross-examination in the Committee proceedings in the other place. The first of my worries is the impact that a new 15-minute service from Paddington between 5 am and 11.30 pm might have on existing and future traffic to and from Paddington. If I do


not receive some reassurance from the sponsor that our worries and concerns will be taken on board, that will influence how I vote.
Those of us who spend a considerable part of our lives on this line—

Mr. Morgan: Who almost live on it.

Mr. Rowlands: Almost.
Many times, the 125 has been on time until the last three or four miles into Paddington station. Those last three or four miles cause the delays. About 90 per cent. of delays occur in that vital three or four miles into Paddington. One of the possible consequences of supporting the motion would be to add another 15-minute service in and out of Paddington from 5 am to 11.30 pm. I have not found any evidence from the proceedings on the Bill showing that the ripple effects that this new service might have on the speed of the 125 service in and out of Paddington have been investigated.

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: As this is not Second Reading I shall not be seeking leave to speak again, but the promoters have assured me that current services will not be disadvantaged as a result of the Heathrow link. That is the best assurance that I can give the hon. Gentleman. If the motion is passed, he will have an opportunity to raise this matter in more detail on Second Reading.

Mr. Rowlands: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am glad that he has already understood that vital point. There was little evidence in the debate in the other place that it had been taken on board; it was, understandably, very much a London debate. The Bill has much wider significance, especially in terms of the Welsh economy. I hope that the word will go out to the promoters that we will seek detailed and categorical assurances. As I understand it, the new 15-minute service will be provided on existing lines and there are no plans to build new lines into the Paddington area. This point has not been dealt with in the necessary detail.
I understand from my reading that a great deal of the construction will not take place immediately around the main line. I do not believe that a scheme of such importance will not cause considerable disruption on and around the existing railway tracks into and out of Paddington, especially in areas about which Conservative Members can speak with greater knowledge. I ask the hon. Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) to say that he will take this matter back to the promoters. We need an assurance about construction. The high-speed 125s travelling from the south-west and south Wales are vital to economic development and to inward investment in our community. We want an assurance that the construction will not affect their speed.

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, about which the promoters are concerned. The assurance has been given—to me, at any rate—that the service will in no way disadvantage main line trains travelling to Paddington from south Wales and other parts of the country.

Mr. Rowlands: I value that intervention. Obviously we shall seek to put flesh on that assurance later.
It would be galling for us to lose the speed and the efficiency of one of the major lifelines from the Principality to the capital. Many of us have suggested that British Rail should consider electrifying western lines as it has done along the east coast. It would be galling to watch construction of an electrified portion of the line in the west if construction slows services from and to the south-west and south Wales for a significant period. One can imagine the irritation and anger that could result. I am grateful to the hon. Member for New Forest for accepting that this is an important point.
I am concerned also about possible linkages between the new expressway and traffic coming from south Wales and the south-west. The hon. Member for New Forest said that the Bill's promoters were open minded. It will be galling if we are left with a service from south Wales to Heathrow that involves getting off at Reading, getting on a bus and, if one is lucky, reaching one of the Heathrow terminals 45 minutes later, then spending a considerable time running round the four terminals. It also takes a lot of time to get out of Heathrow before one can set on one's way towards Reading to catch the mainline service.
On balance, I am inclined not to oppose the carry-over motion because of the comments by the hon. Member for New Forest. We give due notice, however, that we will raise the issue of the connection between the railway service from south Wales to Heathrow and Paddington and the ways in which the benefits of a major, new communications infrastructure can be tied to the Principality's requirements. We feel that we are a long way from the channel tunnel; we are determined not to be a long way from London or Heathrow.

Mr. Robert Adley: I should like on behalf of the whole House, I hope, to thank my hon. and neighbouring Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson). Over the years, he has taken immense trouble with railway Bills and he is always courteous, diligent and thorough. We are grateful to him yet again, and we are grateful for his attempts to answer questions.
We have a problem. This procedural motion involves a group that is partly financed by a nationalised industry, which presumably accounts for the presence of the Minister on the Front Bench. We shall all try to keep within order, but it is difficult to decide whether to support this motion without assurances from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest or my hon. Friend the Minister on some points.
I have to declare an interest as the author of "Tunnel Vision" which the Hansard reporters could not seem to see, so I shall hold it up for them. It was published by the Conservative Political Centre and was purchased by certain Labour Members. A long time ago, the book foresaw many of the points that we are discussing. I declare an interest also as author of a recently published book "Out of Steam", which also attends to questions of railway investment criteria.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest asks us to support the Bill. Paragraph (4) of the preamble states:
In order to provide improved services and facilities for passengers travelling to or from Heathrow".
I submit that, before the Bill completes its passage, the words "from central London" should be inserted. Preferably—I strongly echo the words of the hon. Member


for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands)—the Bill should provide what is proposed in paragraph (4). Unless the Bill is amended, a great opportunity will be lost.
A west-facing link must be a vital feature of the Bill for south Wales, the west country and the south-west. Of course we accept the assurances given by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, but surely the time when the Bill is being promoted is the time for the promoters to say that they will acquire the necessary land. We are talking about 200 or 300 yd of land on which to build west-facing tracks and that land should be reserved now. I have not yet heard an assurance from my hon. Friend on that point.

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: As I said, this is not a Second Reading debate, but I should like to make the point that the promoters want to ensure that the link between the capital and the airport is preserved as a premium rail route. If we are to have stopping trains or any alterations to that basic principle, obviously different objectives will have to be considered. I have already assured the House that those objectives are being considered. Finally, I should emphasise that it will probably be as quick to go to Paddington and get on to the dedicated line as it would be to have stopping trains on what is intended to be a fast premium service.

Mr. Adley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I should point out to him that people who are traveling—whether to Baghdad or to Bangkok—with lots of luggage will not take kindly to finding themselves whizzing past Heathrow at 125 mph on a high speed train from Swansea, watching the airport disappear behind them, getting off at Paddington and taking all their luggage from platform A to platform B, only to go back on themselves.
Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn), I suspect that unless a determined decision is made at the outset of the Bill's proceedings both to provide and utilise modern technology and to provide for the acquisition of the necessary extra land—I shall touch on that in a moment—the Bill will face considerable difficulties as we proceed.
This is not a hybrid Bill, but it is the result of a hybrid promotion: it is being promoted partly by a recently privatised company and partly by a state-owned company. Sooner or later—and before we proceed much further with the Bill—someone will have to recognise that a public transport opportunity will be missed unless the matter is dealt with properly. We need a transport policy that recognises opportunities. We need the electrification of the Great Western main line— thank goodness Brunel built it to the 7 ft gauge, otherwise we should not now have enough land to do what the promoters envisage in the Bill—not just from Paddington to Heathrow but from the proposed Heathrow junction to Reading and Oxford and to Banbury and Coventry. We need the line to be connected with the electrified rail network throughout the country.
I must point out to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest that people like through trains. They do not like having to change, especially if they are travelling with a lot of luggage. To build a new piece of railway line at a cost of many tens of millions of pounds and not to capitalise on the opportunities being created is a dereliction of duty.
Have the promoters considered the use of modern technology for powered slip coaches? The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) will remember that the Great Western used to slip coaches in steam days. In those days, one could not do what one can now do with electric and diesel power, which is to slip a self-powered unit. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether that has already been considered, or whether it will be borne in mind when the promoters consider the west-facing link?

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: I am not competent, Madam Deputy Speaker, to answer questions about advanced technology on the railways in this debate: it is not a Second Reading debate. My only concern is that we should move to the point at which the interesting arguments deployed by my hon. Friend can be given a proper opportunity to be discussed—namely, a Second Reading debate in the next Session.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I should again draw the attention of the House to the fact that we are not discussing the Bill. We are discussing the motion on the Order Paper, which deals with the question whether we should suspend proceedings on the Bill. We are talking not about the Bill but about a suspension motion and it would make my job a little easier if hon. Members would relate their remarks to that from time to time.

Mr. Adley: I shall relate my remarks to that from time to time, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The present Bill is a private Bill, but it will be funded in part by the nationalised railway industry. We cannot simply disregard the Bill's national transport implications. I shall endeavour not to incur your wrath, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not have a great deal more to say, but the point is that this is a private Bill based on the use and exploitation of a public asset—the Great Western railway main line.
On that basis, the promoters must be made aware that they cannot just take advantage of the opportunities of financial reward; they must be made to be responsible for the public interest in their use of a priceless national asset. That is why I ask my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest—or perhaps the Minister can answer this question—whether the promoters or the Department have made any sort of cost-benefit analysis not only of what is in the Bill but of the aspects that the promoters might reasonably have assumed hon. Members would raise at this stage in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Minister may not know this yet, but a number of us have had a wasted year. We have been discussing with British Rail the future of the Waterloo-Salisbury-Exeter line. We were promised a cost-benefit analysis and then, at the eleventh hour, British Rail had to admit that it had been told by the Department of Transport not to go ahead with such an analysis. Flow on earth can the Department of Transport forbid a nationalised railway industry to undertake a cost-benefit analysis? For this Bill, such an analysis is essential.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): Although it is not directly relevant to the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I must tell my hon. Friend that he has been misled. At no stage did the Department of Transport suggest to British Rail that a cost-benefit analysis should not be performed.

Mr. Adley: When my colleagues and I come to see the Minister, we shall pursue the matter. Certainly, that was the clear impression that we received from British Rail in the course of our meetings with it.
We are being asked to approve a carry-over motion for half a Bill. Where else but in Britain could it seriously be proposed to build a rail link from the nation's major airport facing in one direction only? The proposed new construction comprises a spur from the Great Western main line into Heathrow. The spur faces eastbound only. The Heathrow Express Railway Bill, welcome in itself, highlights dramatically everything that is wrong with transport planning in this country.
Passengers from the west country and south Wales—from Bristol, Cardiff, Swansea, Gloucester, Swindon—who wish to use the Heathrow link will have to travel into Paddington passing the new link-line; then transfer themselves and their luggage from platform X to platform Y at Paddington; then travel back on themselves to Heathrow. Leaving aside the time wasted and the aggravation of whizzing past one's destination and continuing in the wrong direction, the inevitable result of this situation is that large numbers of potential rail travellers to Heathrow from the west country will still go by coach and car, thus failing to ease congestion and pollution.
The obvious common sense of building a westbound spur into Heathrow has escaped planners of the new line, or, more likely, has failed to attract them as commercially worth while. No questions are asked about the perceived national interest, the obvious regional advantages or simple transport logistics.
Can anyone imagine the Department of Transport proposing a new motorway link road which faced in one direction only? To ask the question is to answer it. This highlights only too well the fundamental difference in road and rail planning in this country. For roads, money is no object. The taxpayer pays and that is the end of the story. For railway development, whether publicly or privately funded, no such rules apply. If it is not commercially viable, it is not built.
When British Rail announced its intention to build a high-speed link from the channel tunnel to central London, the nation demanded—quite properly—that full environmental protection be given to those who might be adversely affected. The Government so instructed British Rail: but they have failed to provide funds for the environmental protection. Somehow British Rail—alone amongst western European railways—is expected simultaneously to behave like a commercial organisation and a national environmental benefactor.
Contrast that with the saga of the Winchester by-pass. Quite appropriately, again, the Department demands sensible environmental protection: the taxpayer pays; no questions asked; end of story. Unless and until the same investment criteria are applied by the Department of Transport and the Treasury to road and rail investment, Britain's railway developments will be based on the foundation of Victorian engineering by our forebears, whilst our industrial competitors in Europe are busy building new railways as well as improving their existing infrastructure. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest will pass my thoughts on to the promoters in full and that he will be able to assure me that, before we proceed any further with the Bill, these matters will be raised with the Department of Transport—

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: The points that my hon. Friend has raised are exactly the points that should be raised in a Second Reading debate. I very much hope that the House will allow the Bill to be carried over so that that debate can take place and so that my hon. Friend can deploy his interesting arguments.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I shall have considerable doubts about supporting the carry-over motion unless proper attention is paid to the environmental aspects of the Bill to which my hon. Friend has referred. In my constituency, we need safeguards to prevent children from getting on to the line because they can do so all too easily—[Interruption.] Well, this is fundamental to my attitude and to whether I vote for the carry-over motion—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that it is, but I must advise the hon. Gentleman that it is not fundamental to the—

Mr. Greenway: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not fundamental to the carry-over motion. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will seek to speak in the debate and I shall wish to call him so that he can speak to the motion.

Mr. Greenway: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. How can one decide whether to support the carry-over motion without making the fundamental points that had been put before one by one's constituents in support of the ultimate Bill?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If we should reach Second Reading, that is when the hon. Gentleman should put his points. He is now anticipating a Second Reading debate in which he will be able to determine how he will vote on the Bill.

Mr. Adley: May I conclude my speech, Madam Deputy Speaker? I do so by saying that, in view of my long, close and happy relationship with my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, I shall support the carry-over motion because he has assured me that my points will be taken into account. The Minister has also listened to all the debate. I therefore hope that, before the Bill receives its Second Reading, those of us who support it but who wish to see it amended will be able to seek a meeting with my hon. Friend the Minister to pursue some of these points, preferably on an all-party basis.

8 pm

Mr. Peter Snape: The debate has been interesting, whether in or out of order. The fact that so many hon. Members of all parties have expressed their legitimate concerns about the progress of the Bill shows that, if and when we reach Second Reading, the hon. Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson), who moved the motion with his customary diligence and courtesy, will face considerable cross-examination. I have no wish to arouse your ire, Madam Deputy Speaker, by transgressing the rules because, were I to do so, I should suffer in a way in which other hon. Members would not, because you would have ample opportunities to tell me so in West Bromwich, as well as in the House.
I should like to give my party's attitude to the motion and, if we have a Second Reading debate, to present our views on the Bill as a whole. The way in which the Bill is being promoted is indicative of the lack of any transport


policy under this Government and of the illogical thinking of many Conservative Members. Over the past 11 years, the Government have continually said that British Rail must divest itself of what Conservative Members term its "superfluous activities". Those aspects of the railway network that were built up by the former private railway companies and run by British Rail since 1948, such as the shipping and hotel services, have been removed from British Rail during the past decade because the Conservative party has said that British Rail should concentrate on running the railway system.
Nevertheless, Conservative Members are here presumably prepared to support a Bill that is promoted jointly by the former British Airports Authority—now BAA plc—and British Rail. The Bill has little to do with operating an airport, but everything to do with running a railway. If the British Airports Authority—or whatever it calls itself these days—can build a railway, surely a railway system can be involved in the ancillary services from which it has profited and which have been seen as a necessary adjunct to that system for more than 100 years. To say the least, it is illogical for the Conservative party to support the carry-over motion, given the way in which the Government have behaved towards British Rail and some of its activities during the past 11 years.
The most worrying aspect of the provisions is that, if the forecasts of the hon. Member for New Forest prove accurate, 6 million people will be using the mainline station in London which is probably the least suitable to carry that additional burden. When I suggested to the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) who, alas, is no longer in his place, that that state of affairs should worry Westminster city council and himself, he replied that it was a matter for Second Reading. However, he also referred to the east-west crossrail which, if it is ever built, will have a substantial impact and will relieve Paddington station of that additional burden.
I realise that the Minister of State has not been at the Department of Transport very long and that he seems to have been shunted into this branch line, but I must advise him that some of the Department's pronouncements are difficult to believe. Earlier this year we had an announcement from British Rail about the modernisation of the railway line to Glasgow, but we are now told that that will not happen because of the economic situation. Furthermore, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State were very much aware of the fears of some of my hon. Friends—and, to be fair, of some Conservative Members—about the additional burden that would be placed on Paddington station if the motion were adopted.
Miraculously, at the Conservative party conference—a strange forum to make such an announcement—and in a vain attempt to produce the standing ovation which I always thought was customary on such occasions, although obviously I was wrong, the Secretary of State produced the east-west crossrail out of his top hat at an estimated cost of £1·5 billion but said nothing about the source of the funding. When the present Secretary of State produces such a white rabbit from his top hat before that particular forum, I think that it is a job for a good vet because I am not sure whether the animal is genuine. Both Siegfried and Tristan from "All Creatures Great and Small" would have an interesting time examining that white rabbit. The Minister of State owes it to the House to

tell us whether the funding for the east-west crossrail will be forthcoming because the Opposition's attitude to the motion may well depend on that central point.

Mr. Freeman: I do not wish to detain the House later if I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. The east-west crossrail will be funded in the conventional way by the Department of Transport by way of grant, in just the same way as the Jubilee line will be financed. Turning to the west-coast main line, I must advise the hon. Gentleman that he should not believe what he reads in the newspapers. That project has not been cancelled. As I understand it, it is still very much in British Rail's plans.

Mr. Snape: If I said that it had been cancelled, I was wrong. I thought that I said that it had been delayed or postponed. We now read that British Rail is talking about an additional year of delay before bringing forward those plans.
Let us concentrate on the Bill—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I was wondering whether my hon. Friend could pursue this a little more quickly. Shall we be able to get from Glasgow to London quicker before we can get from Paddington to Heathrow that little bit quicker?

Mr. Snape: I have no doubt that, having heard that comment, the Minister of State will reply suitably to it if he succeeds in catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The real fears expressed by hon. Members of all parties about the motion and the logical conclusion of its acceptance should be considered carefully both by the promoters and by the Department of Transport. It is not just a question of BAA plc and British Rail dividing the £235 million cost in the way in which they have outlined with 80 per cent. being met by BAA plc and, as I understand it, 20 per cent. by British Rail. In an ideal world, the Department of Transport would say that this should be a joint partnership. If the Minister of State would like to take the weight of speaking for the nation on his undoubtedly broad shoulders, he should say, "We, the nation, must be involved in a project of this size." It does not make sense merely to connect the nearest London terminal station to Heathrow airport. We must do far more than that and ensure that if and when the new rail link is built it becomes an integral part of our overall railway system. Such a piecemeal, begging-bowl approach to these matters bedevils our transport industry and amply illustrates what is wrong with the Government's lack of a transport policy.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Is it not also nonsensical that an important railway development should apparently depend on British Rail being able to flog off some land to obtain the revenue to inject into the project? It might find itself in the same position as it was in at King's Cross. The land that it proposed to sell was suddenly declared to belong to a hospital and had to be returned to that hospital instead of being used for development land—a classic example of depending on the vagaries of property development for important projects.

Mr. Snape: Exactly. The overall economic situation, grim as it is, also has an impact on the amount of cash that British Rail can raise from the sale of its land. This is the only nation on earth that would approach projects of this size and complexity in this way. It is nonsensical that


British Rail should have to flog off parcels of land to find the money to invest in a railway line which should have been built decades ago.

Mr. Adley: Will the hon. Gentleman come to the point about the west-facing link? In case I did not make myself clear, does he agree that if the same had been done by road, it would have been announced when the M4 was being built that there would be a link from the M4 to central London but that the traffic coming in by road would have to go right into central London, round Hyde Park corner and back out again?

Mr. Snape: That amply illustrates the nonsensical approach that the Government always adopt.
I should not want the House to think that I am being too hostile to the British Airports Authority. Without its contribution, the link would never be built under the present Government because British Rail would have great difficulty proving that there would be a proper return on the capital. No doubt it would have to parcel up even more tracts of land throughout the country to finance the link, assuming that the Secretary of State or the Minister of State gave it permission to spend its own money.
To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), a similar situation arose with the Manchester airport rail link. That is being built by BR, although it can only afford to build a north-facing junction. It has supposedly reserved enough land to be able, when it has parcelled off and sold another piece of land, to build a south-facing junction some time in the future. Those are the economics of bedlam and the railways of the madhouse.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that at least the promoters of the Manchester Bill had the honesty to include in that Bill the north and south links? Although it is sad that the south link is not being built at the same time, at least the parliamentary powers exist to build it and it can be lobbied for. The sad thing about this Bill is that there is no sign of a west link in it. All the signs are that the promoters are determined not to have one.

Mr. Snape: That is probably right. Looking at the scheme from the promoters' narrow angle, I do not believe that they want a west link. They want their own dedicated train service running every 15 minutes between Paddington and Heathrow. They would regard the addition of trains from the west country as an intrusion on their private railway. That is what is wrong with the system. Even if land is reserved for a west-facing junction, there is no guarantee that under the present 80–20 system of ownership the junction would ever be laid. Given the habitual incompetence of much of British Rail's senior management, they would miss an opportunity like that if they were given the chance.
It is hard to imagine the BAA seeking additional trains from the west country because the authority would regard them as trespassing on its private piece of railway. The BAA also says that because the new station at Heathrow is under ground it will be unsuitable for the diesel trains—HSTs or diesel multiple units—which now operate on the former Great Western main line. As the hon. Member

for Christchurch would tell us, that is an argument for electrification, but so far as I am aware the Government have no plans to electrify the Great Western main line. So unless common sense prevails and there is a change of heart by the Government we shall be stuck with a private piece of railway—[Interruption.] I wish the Minister would persuade some of the people who sit in the civil servants' Box, and who have been giving him doubtful advice, not to shake their heads when an Opposition Member is speaking. After all, it is their advice on which successive Ministers have relied for so many years, which explains why our transport network is in such a mess.
I hope that before the House accepts this motion it will look again at some of the points that have been raised. Perhaps we should reconsider the signalling system in and out of Paddington—a point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney—which I believe is still controlled from an old oak signal box dating from the late 1960s. I do not know whether that system can be improved to cater for these additional trains without impinging on the existing mainline service from Paddington. If the experience of Birmingham is anything to go by, it cannot, because we have enormous problems with additional capacity into Birmingham New Street station, where the signalling system dates from the 1960s. With its habitual short-sightedness, British Rail senior management ripped up every additional piece of track that it could, so life is extremely difficult now that capacity needs to be increased in the way that many of us had warned that it would.
There are still many unanswered questions. Although the hon. Member for New Forest has done his best to answer them, hon. Members on both sides need more reassurance. If this is to be a small private railway run purely for the benefit of Heathrow airport, it will not have the support of the Opposition or, I suspect, of many Conservative Members.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I apologise to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for any apparent discourtesy by officials—it was not meant. From my knowledge of officials in the Department of Transport, I can say that they would serve any Government of any party fully and faithfully, and I assure him that their views about the facts are in no way intended to be discourteous.
The Government support the procedural motion because we support the principle of the Bill: a new, fast, electrified line from the nation's capital to the nation's major airport. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) rightly pointed out, prospects of connections beyond, once the east-west crossrail is completed—we hope by the end of the decade, although British Rail cannot yet have fully thought through the details—open up, for instance, between the airport and other places in the nation's capital and further afield. That is an exciting prospect, made possible by the announcement on the crossrail.

Mr. Cryer: As the Government have no plans to electrify the former Great Western main line out of Paddington, does the Minister envisage a dedicated track to Heathrow as the sole electrified track out of Paddington? Does not that militate against any use of the Heathrow railway by other traffic?

Mr. Freeman: I do not want to stray into secondary issues. Of course, an electrified track coming off the main line to Heathrow would preclude—although this is not for me to say—a diesel service coming from the west country, for reasons of railway safety. That is a matter of common sense, although it is not for discussion in this debate. As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, all points west of the junction with the main line would have to be electrified to provide a west-facing service. The line to Reading will be electrified on the east-west crossrail. However, no submission or decision has been made by British Rail about the electrification of the whole of the Great Western line.

Mr. Adley: Is the Minister saying that the east-west crossrail rail will have full overhead electrification to Reading? If that is the case, it is extremely welcome news which I must have missed.

Mr. Freeman: Planning permission for an east-west crossrail has to come before the House if that procedure is adopted. That is the principle behind the proposal. I should he happy to meet hon. Members to understand more fully some of the points that have been made. They are not directly germane to the motion or the principle of the Bill.
I note the pressure for stops on the line, especially in Ealing, and the arguments for a west-facing service. I also note what hon. Members have said about the implications for the existing service at Paddington station. Those are all important matters and I give an undertaking to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and to other hon. Members that at any time from tomorrow onwards I should be happy to meet them to understand their concerns more fully. In the meantime, the Government support the motion because we support the principle of the Bill.

Mr. Patrick Ground: The Minister mentioned links in other directions. Will he include in his undertaking a willingness to discuss the possibility of keeping open links to the south by constructing the tunnels under the airport, because the points that he has made apply in the same way to links to the south as to links in other directions?

Mr. Freeman: I note what my hon. and learned Friend says. The Department of Transport does not run the railways. This is a private Bill and it is for British Rail to make investment proposals to the Government. If my hon. and learned Friend cares to join my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch in a meeting with me or cares to see me separately, I should be glad to listen to his arguments.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Did the Minister say that the cross-London link will be electrified from Reading? If that is the case, the west link is much more feasible. The Minister is nodding, from which I take it that the line will be electrified from Reading to the centre of London.
I oppose the carry-over motion because it is a totally inappropriate way for us to proceed in this matter. It is clear from the debate that we are concerned about three major areas. One is a national transport policy, the second

relates to environmental issues for people close to the proposed link, and the third is about how well petitioners can be represented.
It is inappropriate for us to deal with transport policy by way of a private Bill which can always be narrowed as it goes through Parliament. However, it can never be widened. The perfectly reasonable proposals about the west link could not possibly be introduced to the Bill at any stage because the promoters would have had to give notice to local people and it is possible that petitions would have been raised. Such a procedure enables us to discuss only a narrow part of transport policy.
We should throw out the Bill. We have already spent a long time on it, but the Government should start again. Instead of using a private Bill, the Government should present their own measure which would give us an opportunity to discuss all the transport implications in the same way as the House is able to scrutinise public Bills. That is much more satisfactory than the way in which we scrutinise private Bills.

Mr. Snape: I realise that my hon. Friend's objections to the Bill are procedural rather than on the details of the Bill. However, I urge him to bear in mind that, although this system of legislation is inadequate, it at least enables the House to debate railways projects. There is no such procedure for road projects, which is why we never debate them.

Mr. Bennett: I am not arguing for a procedure that would allow us to debate only road projects. I want a procedure that will enable us to debate our whole transport policy. We do not have an opportunity to debate a whole series of transport matters.
What is the relationship between the Bill's proposals and the whole question of the channel tunnel? I am mystified about what British Rail will do. Will it advertise to encourage people to go to Paris by taking the train from Paddington to Heathrow and then flying, or will it encourage people to go all the way by rail? The British Airports Authority wants to promote a rapid link to Heathrow because it wants to encourage more people to fly. I am baffled by British Rail's proposals.
We should have a proper debate about how far we want to encourage more people to fly to Europe or more people to travel by train when the channel tunnel is completed. We could debate the environmental issues and the implications for Kent and for those who live around the airport. The Bill also raises the whole question of the regional airports versus Heathrow. The north-west faced great difficulties about getting the money for a small rail link from the centre of Manchester to Manchester airport. That link should have been built years ago. However, we see the ease with which money can be raised to improve a link through the centre of London and out to Heathrow. We should be able to explore the whole of that argument.
We should question whether everyone should have to travel into London and then out to Heathrow or Gatwick rather than having direct links to those airports. Hon. Members have spoken about the west link. A west link would be attractive for people from the north of England because from Reading northwards the old Great Western line to Coventry would form an attractive link to the north-west. It is much more attractive to come from Manchester to Heathrow via Reading and to have a direct


link into the airport from the west than to have to get out at Euston and struggle through central London and all its crowds.

Mr. Adley: That is precisely why I have been pleading for some years for the linking of the channel tunnel line and the proposed line through to Reading, Oxford, Banbury and, through Leamington, to Coventry. We have not touched on a matter that the promoters must consider because it is relevant to the Bill. It is whether passengers would prefer to save perhaps five minutes by transporting their own luggage from A to B or whether they would prefer through services if they were available. In any discussion on transport policy linking rail and air, that aspect of any proposal must be fully considered.

Mr. Bennett: I accept that. I would argue strongly for a link from Reading northwards. It would be attractive for people on the west side of Britain to have a major service down the west side to Reading which then made its way to the channel tunnel, avoiding London. A link from Reading to Heathrow would also be attractive. Many people who live north of Reading would find it better to go northwards to Manchester, which has a much more convenient airport, than to try to struggle round the four terminals at Heathrow. There are strong arguments for developing a policy that encourages much more use of regional airports.
A major problem of the private Bill procedure is that it does not give us a proper opportunity to explore what should be our national transport policy. For example, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) asked whether people want through journeys, or to change. What about the convenience of changing on one platform rather than having to struggle from one platform to another—a factor with considerable implications for people with luggage?
If this were a public Bill, amendments could be tabled and issues could be debated at some length in Committee. I suspect that there would be a great deal of interest in debating and making proposals for an effective integrated public transport system. While the private Bill procedure gives us the occasional three-hour debate—when we press some of the procedural points, we get slightly more debates—it is not a satisfactory way in which to proceed.
There are also the environmental issues. The private Bill procedure is not satisfactory for those who live along the proposed routes. I appreciate that in this case the promoters have put much of the section to Heathrow underground, and removed the objections of some of the people who live close to the route and who would suffer environmental problems. However, those living along the existing sections of railway will suffer from the considerable increase in the frequency of trains. There are far better ways for them to put forward their objections than to have to come to a Private Bill Committee in the House of Commons.
It is increasingly onerous on hon. Members to have to sit in a semi judicial role. Furthermore, I wonder whether any hon. Member can honestly say that he has no interest in a Bill such as this. The theory behind the Bill procedure is that four hon. Members, who are supposed to be neutral and disinterested, and who will listen to the case being put forward by the promoters and the objectors, are picked to serve on the Committees examining the Bills. I suspect that

most hon. Members have suffered from the frustrations of trying to get out to Heathrow and would, for their own convenience, prefer to cut the journey time considerably. Many hon. Members use Heathrow almost weekly, so the House will have to look carefully to find those who could fairly serve on the Committee and have no interest in the matter. Furthermore, we do not best serve our constituents by being tied up in a Private Bill Committee with such narrow terms of reference for the long hours that some of our colleagues have suffered when dealing with private Bills such as the Kings Cross Railways Bill and the Channel Tunnel Bill and one or two other such Bills.
If the House were to refuse this and other carry-over motions, it would encourage the Government to reform the private Bill procedure. We have had a consultation document on this, and the responses to the Government were in by 28 September. I hope that the Minister will at least have a word with the Leader of the House and suggest that there are many attractions in finding time in the next Session to legislate to reform the private Bill procedure. It is likely that the Session after that will be the first of a new Parliament. I suspect that reform of private business would not be the first priority in such a Session. When the Labour party forms the new Government, there will be fierce competition for the first Bill, and I suspect that Tory Members who hope that they will form the next Government will not want legislation dealing with reform of private Bills to be introduced in the first Session of their new Parliament. Therefore, the next Session of Parliament, in which business appears to be rather light, gives us the most reasonable chance of getting through such reforms.
We must tell people outside what is happening. Several Bills dealing with transport are under discussion and people have a right to know whether such Bills will be taken through under the present archaic procedure, or under a new and improved set of rules. For example, in what way will the proposal for a cross-London link, which we have discussed today, be dealt with? We must sort out our procedures, and if the House stopped routinely passing carry-over motions and insisted that promoters got Bills through in one Session, or if the Government looked for some other way to promote such measures, that would be a major spur to sorting out these procedures.

Mr. Terry Dicks: I am the constituency Member for the Heathrow end of the proposed railway and I declare an interest as a shareholder in the British Airports Authority. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) said that the cost of amending the route was £25 million when, as I pointed out to him, it was £12 million which was put in by the BAA. The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell)—I nearly called him my hon. Friend because we both sit on the Select Committee on Transport—also suffered from a slight misunderstanding. He said that his constituents were concerned about the rising of the line on the flyover, but the flyover comes out at Hayes. I think that the hon. Gentleman was remembering the days when he lived in this part of Hayes, and I hope that he does not mind my correcting what he said.
We have to look at several factors before deciding whether to agree to the carry-over motion. The first is consultation. When this issue first raised its head in the summer of 1988, what consultation there was was bad.


Since then, and since this was brought most forcibly to the attention of the sponsors by me and others, the consultation, especially that between the BAA and me, as the local Member of Parliament, has improved substantially. I am glad to place that on record.
I still believe that the route chosen is the wrong one. I feel that it should come in from Southall direct to the terminals. However, again as a result of the debates in the other place, the promoters of the Bill amended the proposal in a way that most reasonable people would feel is acceptable, and they are to be congratulated. However, many of my constituents are more concerned about the way in which the railway line will lift off past their homes—in some instances past their bedrooms—rather than being pleased that the line in going under the M4, as that has little effect on the way that they live or on their environment.
The amount involved now is over £200 million and, on the projected figures, 6 per cent. of the 39 million passengers using Heathrow will use the link. However, there will soon be a planning application for terminal 5, which, if approved, will increase the number of passengers to 50 million. What will be the effect on the comfort and perhaps even the safety of the link of another 1 million passengers—7 million rather than 6 million? Before we decide to agree to the carry-over motion, will my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest say how this potential increase in rail use is covered by the Bill?
I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) that we must have a better rail link from London to Heathrow. The motorway and other surface access to Heathrow is appalling with four terminals, and the only way to improve surface access is to make sure not just that we have a link but that we have one that meets the needs of my constituents as well as the financial aspirations of British Rail and BAA.
My local authority of Hillingdon has never been and is not now opposed to the principle of a fast rail link. However, some questions need to be answered. As I have already said, the construction will cause a great deal of concern to my constituents. The area is renowned for the amount of hazardous waste beneath the surface. Unfortunately, it has methane gas deposits, so great care must be taken. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give an assurance that all possible measures will be taken to minimise the impact of dealing with hazardous infill—for example, it may have to be moved and deep piling may be necessary.
Although the proposals are welcome to many people in my area, it must be remembered that my constituents will have to cope with the noise of additional trains at night and early in the morning. I wonder whether the Bill's promoters have considered every possibility for minimising the noise from additional trains.

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: I have already said that 15 petitions have been lodged against the Bill, some of which relate to my hon. Friend's concerns. If the carry-over motion is passed, that will provide an opportunity for the important points raised by my hon. Friend to be given an appropriate airing in Committee.

Mr. Dicks: I am aware of the requirement that we speak within the rules of the carry-over motion. However, if my

hon. Friend can clarify certain aspects of the proposal tonight, some of the petitioners might modify their objections by the time the Bill reaches Committee.
I understand the comments from south Wales Members about trains not stopping to pick up passengers along the line into London, even though Heathrow is just around the corner from some of the stations.
I am in a dilemma, because some of my constituents do not want the rail link, while my local authority wants it, but believes that there is a better route. At this stage, I am not sure which way I shall vote. From a democratic viewpoint, I suppose that a Second Reading would give hon. Members the opportunity to air their views in a much deeper and more meaningful way than is possible on a narrow carry-over motion. Perhaps, on balance, there is a case for allowing the Bill to proceed to Second Reading. I shall have to make a decision on that before the vote.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Like other hon. Members, I am in a dilemma. I am not opposed to the principle of a fast rail link from London to Britain's major airport. London has been referred to as the nation's capital, and it is certainly one of the nation's capitals. I am disinclined to support the motion, and my reasons for that are related to what a carry-over motion is all about and to the rights of ordinary Members of Parliament with an interest in the matter. I have taken an interest in this Bill since it was first mooted and eventually made its first tentative steps into the private Bill procedure in another place.
We must seriously consider our rights in relation both to the private Bill procedure and to carry-over motions. Most of us understand the private Bill procedure to confer on Members of Parliament the right to express views to the promoters. The promoters then have a fairly clear idea what they need to do to satisfy the objections from all parts of the House. If they want their Bill to go through quickly, they try to meet those objections. If they do not mind struggling through a carry-over motion, Second Reading in the next Session and a Committee stage opposed by 25 petitioners, the procedure will take a great deal longer but they may eventually get the Bill in the form in which it was originally tabled. That is their choice, and it is the traditional way in which we conduct our private Bill procedure. It is the balance that Parliament has struck between the rights of the promoters to bring a private Bill before Parliament, with petitioners able to object to it, and our rights as Back-Bench Members of Parliament.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) said when he attempted to satisfy some of the objections from Opposition Members and, in particular, from Conservative Members, in the hope that those who are minded to vote against the Bill or who are extremely worried about it might have their minds changed by the end of the debate. I wish to explore the exact nature of the assurances that he gave to his hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) and others. I wish to clarify exactly what he said.
I should not like to think that the hon. Gentleman was giving oral promises which might fall into the Sam Goldwyn category of not being worth the paper on which they are written. The hon. Gentleman said that the promoters were fairly open-minded about making some


provision for travel from the west into Heathrow which would take advantage of the investment that the British Airports Authority and British Rail are willing to make. He said that he wanted to make that point at this stage in the hope of achieving some cross-party—east and west of Heathrow—backing.

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: I made it clear that the Bill seeks to provide a basic, dedicated service between the capital and Heathrow. However, the promoters have said that at some time in the future, after that is set in place, they will consider the options available—some of which were referred to by my hon. Friend the Minister—when the east-west crosslink has been built. Much is said about what happens in continental Europe. Charles de Gaulle airport has a dedicated line which does not go past the airport, and does not pick up people from Reims, Vervins or anywhere else. That is a normal procedure. British Rail is right to build a basic system first and then consider the options to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Morgan: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is withdrawing all the assurances that he gave about having an understanding with the sponsors that, if we pass the carry-over motion and give the Bill a Second Reading, at some stage in the proceedings the sponsors will be willing to spend some money on making provision for westward travel. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, if we pass the carry-over motion and if the sponsors manage successfully to negotiate the other shoals and rapids of the parliamentary procedure, perhaps at some later stage there could be some provision for futher expenditure, wholly unconnected with the matter before us tonight, which might provide the wider link to south Wales and, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), to Birmingham and points north-west via a link from Didcot? The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: I am not trying to have it both ways. If the hon. Gentleman reads what I said in Hansard he will find that, both in my opening remarks and now, I am saying that we are seeking power in the Bill to build a basic link between the two points. However, British Rail has said that in future it will look at the sort of extensions to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
As the former Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure, I am well aware of the current system's defects. The Committee's unanimous report is currently being considered by both parts of the House. As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) pointed out, that led to a consultation document which ended on 28 September. There is nothing sacrosanct about the private Bill procedure. I should like to see it altered for railway building, but I am anxious that the Bill should go forward for a Second Reading when the important points to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has referred can be properly discussed. He can have the proper assurances on such an occasion, but I am afraid that tonight is not the right occasion for such assurances to be given.

Mr. Morgan: It is important that the House should be crystal clear about what the hon. Gentleman is now saying. Is he saying that the Bill's promoters are

open-minded about amending it during its passage through the House with regard to both the Westminster end and the people who represent constituencies immediately west of Heathrow or around Heathrow or elsewhere? Or are they merely open-minded about doing something entirely different at a later stage? Of course they will be open-minded about introducing an entirely different Bill at an entirely different time, possibly with an entirely different public/private sector joint venture. But I think that the hon. Gentleman is saying that their minds are closed to any alterations to the Bill.

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: I made the point earlier that in the Opposed Private Bill Committee in the other place a substantial change was made to the route that the link will take. It was to have gone on a viaduct above the M4, but it is now going in a tunnel under it. The hon. Gentleman's point can be argued in Committee, if such takes place, when the Bill returns in the next Session. The assurances for which he is asking must be given by the promoters. I am making the point that they are listening to what he is saying and that the purpose of the Bill, as at present drafted, is to build the basic link.

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful for the gracious way in which the hon. Gentleman has risen every time I have challenged him. I do not wish to put too heavy a burden on him as though he were the promoter—he has simply introduced the Bill today for the purposes of the carry-over motion—but it is our right as Members of Parliament on a carry-over motion that is important.
The hon. Gentleman said that in the other place the promoters showed themselves flexible enough to put more of the line in a tunnel and therefore we should be reasonably satisfied that they will listen to any points that are made, but this carry-over motion is one of the ways in which to bring a bit of heavy muscle to bear on the promoters so that they give us some indication of the kind that they have not shown so far during the Commons stages of the Bill. They have done so in respect of altering the route from Paddington to Heathrow, but not in respect of the linkages between the line and the rest of the public railway system. That is the critical point. Are they willing to consider putting one or more stops on the line, as distinct from altering the route or putting sections of it in a tunnel? That is the sort of thing that Back Benchers would like to know at this stage.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this a procedural motion. The hon. Gentleman is anticipating a Second Reading debate, when these matters can be debated.

Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. After an earlier exchange between myself and the hon. Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson), I believed that this was an open-minded debate and that when it came to Second Reading and subsequent stages the promoters would be genuinely open-minded and at least consider making provision in the Bill for stopovers and connections with the west, particularly with south Wales. It now appears that that is not quite so, and that affects the way in which I shall vote on the motion. Therefore, I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will consider that a legitimate point to raise in the debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman seems to be repeating a speech that he made earlier.

Mr. Morgan: I am confining myself as best I can to the motion, but in my inexperience you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may have to correct me and I shall be happy to accept such a correction.
I am concerned about the kind of undertaking that can be given in a debate on a carry-over motion to show not the good behaviour of the promoters but their flexibility, which the sponsor has been at pains to emphasise in his opening speech and in his interventions in response to me and to other hon. Members.
There are three major ways, apart from the buffers at Paddington station, of linking the dedicated enclave line contained in this private Bill with the public railway system. Can some sort of nod or wink be given at this stage as to whether any of those are up for grabs if we agree to the carry-over motion and the Bill reaches Second Reading and Committee stage? Those three ways have been partly referred to by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape).

Mr. Adley: I accept the assurance given by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) and I gratefully accept the Minister's offer of a meeting to ensure proper ministerial influence. I hope that on that basis the hon. Gentleman will be inclined to join me in the Lobby tonight in support of the motion.

Mr. Morgan: I shall be happy to do that. Earlier today the Welsh parliamentary group met the Minister in Marsham street when the matter that we are discussing was touched on. Like the hon. Gentleman, I accept the assurances that have been given, but I want to know what they mean. Basically, we are seeking to discover what a carry-over motion can achieve for ordinary hon. Members.
I was dealing with the three major ways of linking the line to the public railway system and whether we can discuss those tonight by way of a sponsor's undertaking on behalf of the promoters or whether we simply have to accept an open-ended assurance that they may be dealt with at another time.
We in south Wales would like a stop on the line as far west as possible—somewhere between West Drayton and Hayes, I think, but my knowledge of the local geography is limited. Members for the Ealing area have already mentioned that they would like a more commuter-oriented stop closer into London—seven miles east of Farringdon. We would like some mention of that from the sponsor tonight. If we give the Bill's supporters the carry-over motion tonight, are they prepared at a later stage to talk about stops, or have they completely shut that out of their minds? Would they rather drop the whole Bill? Do they think that stops would wreck the economics of the line?
Another idea has been mentioned three or four times today, so I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will not mind if I mention it a fifth or sixth time. That is the question of a westward-pointing junction just slightly west of Heathrow, which would join up on the stub line down into Heathrow with the eastward-facing junction coming out in the Hayes area. They would join up to enable people

from Slough and points west as far as Reading, Bristol, south Wales—and, indeed, Oxford and Birmingham—to enter London from that route.
A third idea is what I think that the sponsor has talked about. It has also been tangentially referred to by the local Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), with whom I had the honour of serving on the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill for some sins that I must have committed during the summer of 1987, although I have still not found out what they were. They pointed out that if, and only if, terminal 5 is built at Heathrow—and that would convert this matter into a totally different type of undertaking—a westward link would come out underneath terminal 5 of the new railway link that is to go underneath terminals 1, 2, 3 and 4, thereby offering a nice little carrot to the House of Commons to remember in future what we spoke about in the original Heathrow Express Railway Bill back in the summer of 1990. It is almost as if they are saying, "We are willing to do that for you now, but only if you give us permission for terminal 5." That would not convert tonight's proceedings into an ability to obtain an undertaking that they are willing to consider a westward link; it would mean that, if they come back with an entirely different scheme to expand Heathrow massively to a capacity for a throughput of up to 60 million or 70 million passengers a year, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington—

Mr. Dicks: I did mention 50 million, but the 60 million or 70 million referred to by the hon. Gentleman is going too far. Nor was I suggesting that the promoters—especially British Airways—would use this as a form of blackmail to get terminal 5; I was merely referring to the transport implications for both road and rail of a fifth terminal.

Mr. Morgan: I mentioned 60 million or 70 million, as opposed to the 50 million mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, because I am not the local Member of Parliament and therefore would not encounter the frightful constituency implications that no doubt would affect him. I am not merely repeating the hon. Gentleman's point about terminal 5; I am amplifying it, because it is entirely relevant to the carry-over motion.
I have been exercising my rights as an ordinary Member of Parliament to object to a private Bill. I have put my name down; other objectors have had to withdraw because they are now on the Government Front Bench. I have done that for many months. The objectors have had meetings with the two promoters of the Bill. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has exercised his right, as a local Member of Parliament, and I have exercised mine as a south Wales Member of Parliament. The promoters have told us that if there is a fifth terminal it will be possible to exercise the third way of connecting up to the railway system somewhere west of Slough. A big loop would then come in from Reading, dive down to terminal 5 and through to terminals 4, 3, 2 and 1, and back up on the line that we are discussing tonight.
What is being said is, "Give us the ham tonight, and then, if you give us the eggs at a later stage, we will have a 'ham and eggs' of the westward link." That is what hon. Members on both sides of the House are asking for tonight—both those who want commuter assistance because they represent constituencies near Heathrow involving huge


work forces, and others who have a regional point of view to put but cannot put it properly under the private Bill procedure unless they exercise their muscle power as Back Benchers in relation to carry-over motions.
Procedural though they be, such motions give us the right to try to put the squeeze on the promoters of private Bills. Otherwise they ignore us completely, as we have been ignored regionally in attempting to exercise our rights. That is why tonight's procedural motion provides an extremely welcome opportunity for us to see whether, by expressing our views forcefully tonight, we can obtain some type of undertaking that the promoters are listening to people who say that "private enclave" railways are not a good investment for this country, but that new investment on the railways that is linked to the public railway system is a good investment for many reasons relating to the environment, global warming, traffic exhaust fumes and surface access transport to the most important single mode of transport in this country.
I am still disinclined to vote for the carry-over motion, simply because of the procedural point that has already been referred to by the hon. Member for New Forest—when he was talking as the past joint Chairman of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure and not as a sponsor of the Bill. That Committee made a recommendation that carry-over motions should not be acceded to by the House unless the promoters could demonstrate that they had not been dilatory. I think that I am summarising the views about the dilatory clause in the recommendations. In the narrow procedural context, we must ask ourselves whether the promoters have been dilatory and whether they have dealt properly with the objectors who have made their views known.

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: The promoters have been extremely attentive in dealing with the objections put to them—some would argue that in the other place a great measure of success was achieved by the objectors. Tonight, we are asking only that the Bill be given an opportunity to progress in the next Session, so that the promoters can be equally thoughtful and forthcoming in response to views of the kind that the hon. Gentleman is expressing.
If the motion is lost, the link will be lost. Those who would vote it down must understand that it will be a long time before such a project can be re-established. Who knows when? I urge those who have doubts to allow the Bill to proceed in the next Session, so that all the valid arguments deployed today by the hon. Gentleman and others can be fully considered. To kill the motion now will be effectively to kill the Bill, with great damage to those who need the link to London airport.

Mr. Morgan: That was a very effective winding-up speech by way of an intervention. In accepting the point that I made when quoting the hon. Gentleman's report, as Chairman of the Committee, that carry-over motions should not be available to promoters unless they can prove that they have not been dilatory, I presume that the hon. Gentleman accepts also that that ruling does not apply to any proceedings in another place, but only to the extent that the promoters have been dilatory after a Bill has left the Lords and it comes before this House. Our only concern is whether Members of this House and their objections have been dealt with in a reasonable manner. I

am not suggesting that our arguments should immediately be conceded—that would be nonsense—but have the promoters made any attempt to meet the many points that have been made?
The promoters know, for example, that all Members of Parliament representing constituencies in south Wales have fears about the future of Paddington station, and believe that the people of south Wales are again being treated like second-class citizens. If rail congestion in the Paddington area gets much worse during the construction of the link, we may be compelled to have Welsh parliamentary questions in Reading town hall because that will be the only place where we can foregather.
Our fears are reinforced when we hear that not only the 10 miles on our main line—although we have no ministerial access to it—is to be electrified, but that something more is to happen, according to the statement made by the Secretary of State for Transport at last week's Tory conference in Bournemouth. The Secretary of State appears to believe that announcements about major new investment projects are in the nature of a travel competition, in which the first prize is a week's holiday in Bournemouth and the second prize a week's holiday in Bournemouth, spent in deafening silence at that conference.
The Secretary of State makes such announcements thinking that everyone will be very pleased. That new project has not yet come before this House, which is a sad reflection on the right of Members of Parliament to debate such matters. In any event, we understand that the line is now to be electrified as far as Reading. However, places to the north of Reading and elsewhere, where the rest of us live—such as Didcot, Oxford, Birmingham and even Scotland, where access could be provided via the west coast main line, though the Scots may have views about the desirability of using Heathrow anyway—are treated as back numbers. They are expected to find ways of compensating for that disadvantage through regional policy, simply because investment decisions are oriented entirely to south-east England.
No wonder we often have to debate regional policy, when private Bills and carry-over motions pass through this House as though they have no regional or wider implications, and when the only point considered to be of importance is whether objectors to the land being taken, and so on, can be squared when the Bill reaches the Committee.
The debate tonight is important because of its wider implications for electrification and the links between the proposed railway and the present public rail system.
The private Bill procedure has many problems.

Mr. Peter Hardy: One argument that my hon. Friend may like to consider in support of the carry-over motion is that it will allow us the opportunity to study the fare structure used on the link as well as that used elsewhere by British Rail. My hon. Friend is familiar with many aspects of European life. A few days ago, I travelled between Paris and Brest on a superb train, part of the way it was the TGV, and the fare was two-thirds what it would be here. My hon. Friend will be aware that French railway investment is proceeding apace. I welcome the proposed investment in the Bill, but I hope that it will not be accompanied by a fares policy which is outrageously at variance with the policy across the channel.

Mr. Morgan: The financing of the line should be fully considered at Second Reading, if the Bill gets that far. The use of the private Bill procedure by a consortium which is both private and public has financial implications. British Airports Authority was privatised recently but the money that it will use to fund the express line comes from taxes forgone on duty-free goods at Heathrow. British Airports Authority have a tax-free concession from all of us here tonight and from the 60 million people who live in this country. As people do not pay tax on the goods that they buy there, we all have to pay more tax. The British Airports Authority sells franchises for sale of duty-free goods, for example, to Hills duty-free shops which put 50 per cent. of the price back on to the duty-free goods. Payment for such franchises are made to the British Airports Authority which then has free capital to invest in projects such as the one we are discussing tonight. However, we shall not be able to discuss the financing of the link tonight, as the money used has been called private money. It is not private, it is our money—the taxpayer's money—because it is a result of taxes forgone on goods: VAT, purchase tax and other taxes on goods sold—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is going a long way off the rails from the carry-over motion. He is an experienced parliamentarian and debater and I am well aware of that, but I should like him to return to the motion on the Order Paper now.

Mr. Morgan: I do not want to cross swords with you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Even before I became a Member of Parliament I was warned not to do so. I was told that you had been a Tiller girl and the emphasis was on the Attila. Therefore, I shall definitely not quarrel with you tonight.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: My hon. Friend mentioned Scotland. Everyone in Scotland to whom I have spoken about the link is in favour of it. All those people who travel from Inverness, Edinburgh and Glasgow to Heathrow hate the dreadful journey from Heathrow into central London on the Piccadilly line. However, they have serious reservations about diverting money from the Glasgow to Euston run for the construction of the express link. I have met no one in Scotland who objects to the express link—they support it wholeheartedly.

Mr. Morgan: I entirely agree that there is universal support for the line but people want it to be linked to the rail system. They are surprised at the dilatoriness with which the promoters of the Bill have considered how to join the express link with the present railway system.
I am still inclined to oppose the carry-over motion. The sponsor's threats that successful opposition to the carry-over motion would kill the chance of getting a link from central London—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that if the Bill falls today it will put considerable pressure on the Government to sort out the private Bill procedure and they could consider bringing forward their own legislation? The promoters would be able to reintroduce the Bill in November and, provided that they had been able to satisfy all the petitioners, the Bill would go through the House as an unopposed private Bill. Such Bills can move through both Houses extremely quickly. That is one of the arguments for getting petitions sorted out before the

promoter starts the parliamentary procedure. Therefore, that threat is not serious and if the promoters were willing to meet the wishes of the objectors, a Bill could go through Parliament quickly.

Mr. Morgan: I was about to make that point to the sponsor of the Bill. I am sure that he did not mean to threaten the House when he said that if the House exercised its constitutional right to refuse the carry-over motion because it believed that the promoters had been dilatory, that would be the end of the Heathrow Express Railway Bill. That is what I think that he said, but I am sure that he did not mean it. If it were a threat, it would be accepted in the way that all threats are accepted. It would show that the promoters had adopted a poor attitude and that they were prepared to cut off their nose to spite their face.
The House has to consider whether to exercise its right to refuse the carry-over motion. It would be open to the promoters to reintroduce the Bill in the next Session. Similarly, recommittal occasionally takes place because of changed circumstances. If the House refuses to agree to the carry-over motion, that will not be the end of the story. The promoters believe that the Bill is a gold mine, so they will reintroduce it in the next Session of Parliament. We want to be part of that gold mine; we do not want to be second-class citizens. Between 6 million and 7 million people live in the London area; they need a first-class service. In addition, between 6 million and 7 million people live to the west of Heathrow. They, too, want a first-class service to Heathrow, but they do not want to lose the almost first-class service to Paddington that they now enjoy. For that reason, I intend to oppose the carry-over motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 10.

Division No. 321]
[9.16 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Alexander, Richard
Devlin, Tim


Amess, David
Dixon, Don


Arbuthnot, James
Dorrell, Stephen


Ashby, David
Dover, Den


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Dunn, Bob


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Durant, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fallon, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Favell, Tony


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fishburn, John Dudley


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Flynn, Paul


Boswell, Tim
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowis, John
Freeman, Roger


Brazier, Julian
French, Douglas


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Gale, Roger


Burns, Simon
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butler, Chris
Gill, Christopher


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Carrington, Matthew
Goodlad, Alastair


Chapman, Sydney
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Chope, Christopher
Gorst, John


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Grist, Ian


Conway, Derek
Ground, Patrick


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hague, William


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hanley, Jeremy


Curry, David
Hardy, Peter


Dalyell, Tam
Harris, David


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney






Haynes, Frank
Patnick, Irvine


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pawsey, James


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Portillo, Michael


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howells, Geraint
Price, Sir David


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Janman, Tim
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ryder, Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kilfedder, James
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Sheerman, Barry


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kirkwood, Archy
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knapman, Roger
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Speller, Tony


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lawrence, Ivan
Squire, Robin


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lightbown, David
Stern, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Summerson, Hugo


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Maclean, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Malins, Humfrey
Trimble, David


Mans, Keith
Trippier, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Michael, Alun
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Mills, Iain
Wallace, James


Miscampbell, Norman
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Monro, Sir Hector
Wheeler, Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Widdecombe, Ann


Moore, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas


Moss, Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Murphy, Paul
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Needham, Richard



Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Norris, Steve
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson


Oppenheim, Phillip
and


Paice, James
Mr. Jack Aspinwall.





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Parry, Robert


Callaghan, Jim
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Dicks, Terry



Eastham, Ken
Tellers for the Noes:


Illsley, Eric
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and


Morgan, Rhodri
Mr. Ron Davies.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Promoters of the Heathrow Express Railway Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the promoters of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended in the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. Alun Michael: I shall be brief in asking the House to agree to the carry-over motion, but, with the leave of the House, I shall be happy to respond to points made in the debate if that is helpful.
Mine is a simple plea: do not dash the hopes of my constituents for a better future, for a better environment and for homes and jobs by voting against a motion that simply allows for full debate in the new Session. I hope that even opponents of the Bill will support the carry-over motion and welcome, as I do, the prospect of proper and full debate on Report.
I have been asking myself whether there are any reasons of any weight for refusing a carry-over. Frankly, there are not. There are, of course, important issues for us to debate on Report, and I shall refer briefly to two. First, there has been a great deal of argument about groundwater. There has also been a great deal of avoidable confusion and some disinformation, but groundwater is undoubtedly a matter of concern. I took the matter seriously from the beginning. When I found that the arguments were becoming technical and esoteric, I demanded the right to appoint my own independent expert to review all the evidence progressively, in order not to have to choose between the corporate view of the development corporation and its advisers on the one hand and the committed opponents of the Bill on the other. These matters will be debated further on Report, but let me give a succinct summary of the position today.
I remind hon. Members that impoundment is not to a level greater than the current position. The level of impounded water will be between the present high water level and the present low water level. I would certainly not support the building of the barrage if the evidence suggested that my constituents were under serious threat. If serious doubts about safety were to arise now or in the future, I should cease to support the Bill—so would South

Glamorgan county council, Cardiff city council and others involved in the promotion of the Bill. But that is certainly not the case to date.
There is a continuing debate about detail, but that must not be allowed to obscure the fact that all available evidence continues to provide a reassurance that the original conclusions remain valid, that, combined with generous safety margins, they provide the basis for confidence in the future and that the selection of plus-4 to 4·5 m ordnance datum for the impounded level is reasonable and sensible. Details will rightly be the subject of debate on Report and of public debate when the additional studies are completed, but there are no grounds for general doubt which would justify refusing further consideration of the Bill.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Is my hon. Friend saying that at this stage, in discussing safety, he takes no account of the urban swamp hypothesis which was put forward by Dr. John Miles in Committee and which it appears the Select Committee accepted?

Mr. Michael: I am aware of the evidence provided by Dr. John Miles and others and I have taken account of it. The conclusions which have been reached and which are supported by the evidence to date and the generous safety margins provide the basis for confidence in the future. The selection of plus-4 m to 4·5 m OD for the impounded level is reasonable and sensible. I have taken account of the evidence given to the Committee. I have taken independent advice and I state that with confidence. Were the position to change, it would be a different matter, but that is the position now.
The second major issue that has been debated, and which is of considerable interest to some of my colleagues, is wildlife. I can understand their concern, taken in the context of a general threat to estuaries, but, as I have pointed out frequently to colleagues and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, they are attacking the wrong case in opposing developments in Cardiff, because here their case is weak. However, that, too, can be debated on Report. We can also talk then about the artificial lagoon which is a major and significant attempt to reconcile development with conservation—indeed, it is a landmark in attempting to do so.

Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend said that the case of those who are concerned about conservation is weak. Surely he has read the examination in the Committee of the witnesses brought by the promoters of the Bill and the petitioners against it. There was general agreement that there would be considerable destruction of wildlife in the bay area and that we would be in breach of our obligations to protect a site of special scientific interest which is protected under the Ramsar convention and which is entitled to protection under the European directive on wild birds. There was consensus in the Committee. How can my hon. Friend say that the case is weak?

Mr. Michael: I know of my hon. Friend's great interest in these matters but, with respect, I think that he stretches the evidence given in Committee and the strength of the case made by the RSPB and those interested in wildlife. A number of issues need to be discussed, but, as I was about to say, I maintain that there are significant positive aspects in the attempts that are being made to reconcile


development and conservation and that the barrage will bring positive effects in encouraging wildlife and a living environment in Cardiff bay. It will be appropriate for us to discuss those aspects on Report and when we have the conclusions of the Select Committee before us. Those two questions have been debated in the past, and I submit that in no sense are they matters on which to base opposition to the carry-over motion, which is the only motion before the House tonight.
The Bill's opponents have advanced further arguments. They say that they do not like the private Bill procedure. I agree. It is an antiquated procedure which requires amendment. The procedure has been diabolically unfair to the promoters, to me and to my constituents, so I share the concern about it.
People have said that they do not like development corporations. By and large, I agree with them, but in this case the development corporation is working in partnership with local elected representatives.
Other issues, such as the removal of the tip in my constituency, have been brought into the debate and a proposal to provide two new schools for the most deprived area in Cardiff even came under threat recently. I submit, however, that none of these matters provides any ground whatever for the refusal of the carry-over motion.
The supporters of the Bill are also involved with a number of other important issues, such as how to preserve existing jobs, how to bring good-quality new jobs to the area, how to provide affordable housing and housing for rent and how to balance the existing communities with the new communities that are to be created.
I remind the House that the whole development area is in my constituency and that, while groundwater may affect constituencies other than mine and new jobs will help other constituencies, most of the matters that I have listed affect my constituency and my constituency alone. However, for the purposes of tonight's debate, the important thing to remember is that they are not relevant to the Bill. Even if one has persuaded oneself that they are relevant to the Bill, one must nevertheless accept that they do not represent the slightest ground for rejecting the carry-over motion. I hope that even the Bill's opponents will accept that and will not indulge in spoiling tactics.
So far I have concentrated on the defensive arguments but there are many positive arguments in favour of the Bill. The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Mr. Jones) and I have sought to provide as much information as possible to hon. Members about the Bill's positive benefits, and I shall not take the time of the House by expanding on that information. The arguments against it can be fully explored on Report and we should set aside those issues which do not, in any way, justify a refusal of the carry-over motion. The positive arguments are far more important. The Bill will make possible the creation of a quality waterside environment. That potential has been proved by the development that has already taken place at Bute east dock, where we see fishermen and cormorants and where there is Dragon boat racing at the weekend. Local people make use of the place. They talk there and enjoy the environment. The same water quality will pertain in Cardiff bay once we have impoundment.
I was involved in the economic development of Cardiff for 16 years as a councillor before I came to this place. I

was involved in the redevelopment of the central area of Cardiff, which is now acknowledged throughout the world to have been a success. I have been involved in trying to help small firms and businesses. The present development of south Cardiff and the bay area—the fact that people are coming into that area—is built on faith in the Bill's success and on the record of success that we have achieved in recent years.
This is my first opportunity to place a certain matter on record, albeit that it involves a slight diversion from the motion. In the latter part of the Committee stage, we heard comments about the Labour councillors who supported the development of south Cardiff and the barrage and, in particular, the three who were elected by ballot of their peers to be members of the Cardiff Bay development corporation board. I refer to the leader of South Glamorgan county council, Councillor Lord Brooks, to Councillor Paddy Kitson, who represents the most deprived area of the city, and to the late Councillor John Reynolds, the then leader of Cardiff city council. Between them, they provided more than 100 years' service to the city and the Labour movement of the area. I am sure that the remarks about a master-servant relationship to the board came from ignorance rather than malice, but it is sad that those remarks were made when Councillor John Reynolds had unfortunately passed away.
John Reynolds was a kind and gentle man; a lion in defence of the defenceless and when fighting for the future of the city that he loved and in the service of which he destroyed his own health. He had the toughness of a true friend, the courage to withstand and forgive the pettiness of others and, above all, an absolute integrity which made him a giant in the Labour movement of Cardiff in a way in which the author of the minority report clearly did not understand or appreciate. I ask the House to understand the way in which the Bill was supported by John Reynolds and the others who represent their fellow councillors on the board and the fact that the Bill has not commanded uncritical support from the late Councillor John Reynolds, myself, or the councillors of the city and county who represent the area. It has commanded the critical, careful and genuine support of elected representatives who are determined to do their best to achieve a real future for their constituents.
Therefore, I return to my basic and simple plea to the House—do not dash the hopes of my constituents for a better future, a better environment, for homes and for jobs by voting down the Bill on a motion which, I remind the House, simply allows the Bill to be carried forward for a full debate on Report in the new Session when any hon. Member can have an opportunity fully to discuss the issues raised in this important Bill.

Mr. Ron Davies: I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that we all have that opportunity now, which is why some of us are choosing to exercise our right to object to the carry-over motion. We are objecting in principle to the Bill. It has already been examined by the House and our questions have not been answered. We know that it has been considered in Committee where many of its fundamental flaws were exposed. We feel that it is now time for the Bill to be stopped and to proceed no further. That is why we shall oppose it.
I was surprised that my hon. Friend used the term "spoiling tactics" to describe our opposition to the Bill—

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend should not be surprised.

Mr. Davies: Apparently my hon. Friend wants to intervene and I am happy for him to do so. If he reserves for himself the right to promote the Bill in the House, he must recognise that others of us have the right to oppose the Bill. If he is suggesting that the House should approve a carry-over motion, he must recognise that others are equally entitled to oppose that. He is not doing his case any good to describe our principled and fundamental oppposition to the Bill as "spoiling tactics". We have made our root and branch opposition to the Bill clear throughout.
I should like to put on the record the fact that if we are unsuccessful in halting the Bill's progress tonight, it will not be the end of the matter. The Bill will return for its consideration motion and we shall oppose it again. We shall then table many many amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will have to detain the House night after night and he will find that the coalition that has been constructed to get the Bill this far will come increasingly under pressure.
Many of us knew Councillor John Reynolds and, regardless of our views on the Bill and on the way in which he voted in his role as a representative in Cardiff, all of us deeply mourn his passing and associate ourselves entirely with my hon. Friend's comments. There is no dispute between us on that.
I have referred to the coalition that is supporting the Bill. It is as well to clear up this matter now because the carry-over motion will not be determined only by the dozen or so hon. Members who are present now, although those of us who are present shall listen to the debate and consider the options and the consequences and the future of the Bill. But when it comes, the vote will not be cast by people in favour of the Bill. It will be cast by the coalition that I have mentioned, consisting in part of Tory Members who will ensure that the Government's will prevails. The payroll vote is on call tonight. A moment ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was here; he has absolutely no interest in Wales, Cardiff or the barrage—

Mr. Peter Hardy: Or in agriculture.

Mr. Davies: I was coming to that—to judge by his speeches it is true.
We know that the payroll vote has been put on standby and will be wheeled out to try to obtain a majority.
The coalition also consists of Parliamentary Private Secretaries. I see the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) in his place—

Mr. John Bowis: I am the hon. Gentleman's Member of Parliament.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is not my Member of Parliament. He represents the constituency in which I temporarily reside. He will be pleased to know that I put up a poster in the window at every election urging my neighbours to put him out of a job. As it seems that he will play a crucial role in tonight's proceedings, I can assure him that I will put up two posters at the next election urging my neighbours to put him out of a job.

Mr. Morgan: As further evidence of the extent to which the Government are committing their prestige to this apparently private Bill, the White Paper on the environment published by the Government less than a month ago states, in the section on Wales, that
the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation was established in 1987 to secure the physical, social and economic regeneration of the South Cardiff area, including the former docklands.
That is a bipartisan statement which presents no problem to any of us. The document continues:
The aim is to introduce new housing, employment and a better environment to the area".
We have no quarrel with that either. It goes on:
The strategy includes a proposal to construct a barrage across the estuary of the Taff and Ely as a key feature". We have no doubt that the Government support what should be considered a private Bill on which they should be neutral.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is exactly right, as he invariably is in these matters. That is why the Whips Office and the Parliamentary Private Secretaries are conniving at producing an artificial majority to ensure the Bill's progress.
Another element in the coalition is represented by the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander), who I know takes a keen interest in environmental matters. But I also know that he has been on what we call a freebie. I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong—I do not want to cast aspersions that I cannot justify—but I believe that he has been entertained at public expense down in Cardiff, where he was persuaded, no doubt, by the force of the arguments that he heard. I am sure that the five-course arguments and the brandy and cigars did not influence him at all. The fact is that he and many other Members have been entertained at public expense and we shall see tonight when the voting lists are prepared that those Members have stayed behind to cast their votes.
If this happened in local government, and people were influenced in any way when casting their votes, they would be prosecuted. All Conservative Members were party to the legislation that placed obligations on local councillors to declare their interests so as to ensure that their votes are not influenced by financial considerations, and to exclude themselves voluntarily from those considerations. That is a fairly seedy coalition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth pleaded with us not to dash the hopes of his constituents for a better future and a better environment. Unfortunately, no one knows whether he is speaking on behalf of the majority of his constituents, because that has not been tested.

Mr. Michael: It is generally accepted in the House that hon. Members know their own constituents. I am quite confident about the matter and it has been tested at the ballot box because anti-barrage candidates stood in recent elections and were thoroughly trounced. I spend a good deal of time in my constituency and I have the pulse of the opinion there. My hon. Friend might bear in mind, as he considers the views of those who are more and more remote from the area that will be directly affected by the Bill, that it has the support of four of the five Members in the south Glamorgan area.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend asserts that his case is correct, but he has not introduced any evidence to


substantiate it. I am not persuaded by such assertions. He spoke about anti-barrage candidates who have been beaten by Labour candidates. He is not so naive as to think that in local elections people vote on single issues. The fact that more than 400 people were prepared to vote for anti-barrage candidates is significant. I am debating on my hon. Friend's ground and it is not an area that I want to enter. However, I know that many Labour party members in his constituency have considerable doubts about the measure. Of course, at election time they will vote Labour because that is their primary commitment and loyalty. We would not expect them to vote anything other than Labour. I urge anti-barrage candidates not to stand.

Mr. Morgan: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies: I should like to develop my argument a little further before giving way.
We do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth speaks for all his constituents. However, we do know that a considerable body of opinion is opposed to this measure. Some people oppose it for reasons related to the environment. I am in that category. Some are opposed to it because they think that their homes are jeopardised, and some feel that such public expenditure cannot be justified. My hon. Friend should recognise that an influential organisation in Cardiff is opposed to the measure. I think that all hon. Members have received a submission from an organisation called Cardiff Residents Against the Barrage. The residents ask, "Can it be defended?"

Mr. Michael: Not all of them say that.

Mr. Davies: If my hon. Friend feels in any way slighted by his constituents, with whom he apparently enjoys such a close relationship, I shall remedy that because as soon as I have concluded this point I shall pass the leaflet to him. For the sake of other hon. Members who might not have received it, I shall read it. It states:
Can it be defended if a parliamentary private Bill has to be carried over into a third Session?
That is almost unprecedented and we know that the proceduralists in the House have produced reports expressing great concern at a single carry-over motion. However, we are now talking about a second carry-over motion and the Bill having to go into a third Session of Parliament. The Bill has been considerably damaged and we shall have to wait for action by a Minister if it proceeds. The residents say:
Can the Bill be defended if the Commons Select Committee was unconvinced by the promoters' technical case to the extent that the final decision has been left to the Secretary of State for Wales?
That statement is incontrovertible. The Committee examined the Bill in great detail and at great length. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth makes noises.

Mr. Michael: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies: I shall give way in a moment. The Committee considered the technical case and concluded that it was fundamentally flawed. It sent the promoters away, told them to carry out a further 12 months study, and said that they would have to present the findings to the then Secretary of State for Wales for a judgment about

whether the scheme should proceed. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that that is hardly an overwhelming endorsement of the scheme.

Mr. Michael: It is ludicrous for people to argue that additional work should be subject to independent scrutiny and public discussion, and then to use the fact that it is subject to independent scrutiny as a reason for suggesting that there is weakness in the previous case. The openness of scrutiny is its strength. My hon. Friend might be a little more objective about the information that he uses, rather than taking what has been circulated by an organisation that does not take advantage of objective scrutiny in the information that it puts out, which is often not 100 per cent. accurate.

Mr. Davies: I assure my hon. Friend that, when I come to the letter that he sent to Members of Parliament, I will be objective, as I shall be when I come to the glossy publication produced by the promoters. In the meantime, the fact remains that the Select Committee that examined the Bill rejected the technical evidence presented on behalf of the promoters and was not satisfied. In other words, it believed that the barrage will cause considerable flooding in Cardiff. That is incontrovertible.
The residents who object say in their leaflet:
Can the Bill be defended if the Select Committee could only reach a majority decision and still insists on major amendments?
We know that the Chairman of the Committee expressed considerable doubt, and that at least one member of the Committee was so concerned about the evidence presented that he felt that the Bill should have been rejected, and that all the members of the Committee were so concerned that they collectively agreed considerable amendments. Even then, they decided that they would abrogate the responsibility of taking the decision and put it off for the Secretary of State to decide. We are now asked to be party to the Bill proceeding.
The residents continue:
Can the Bill be defended if the objections of the majority of the 70-plus petitioners against the Bill have still not been satisfied?
That case stands by itself. They continue:
Can the Bill be defended if local polls show that most local residents are opposed to it, even though they have been given no chance to vote properly on the issue?
Why does not the Cardiff Bay development corporation undertake, with the Cardiff city council and South Glamorgan county council, a referendum in the city of Cardiff? All the evidence could be given and residents could cast a vote on it. If that happened, we should have some evidence on which to base our claims that residents are for or against the barrage. If my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth acknowledges that residents who vote against it at election time are being given the chance to vote on the issue, why does he not now ask the CBDC to organise a referendum? I guarantee that if he accepts to be bound by the results of the referendum, and to withdraw the Bill if the vote is against it, I will agree to be bound by the results of the referendum and will withdraw my objection if the vote is for it. There cannot be anything fairer than that. It is important that residents be carried along. My hon. Friend will know that I have other objections, but I will make that pledge. My hon. Friend can intervene now if he wants. He does not want to take that opportunity, so perhaps we shall come back to it later.
The residents continue:


Can the Bill be defended if one of he local MPs—one who is affected by many of these matters—and many local councillors are totally opposed to it?
Can the Bill be defended if it is vigorously opposed on environmental grounds by the NCC and the RSPB?
Can the Bill be defended if at least 12,000 inner-city homes"—
with people who have already been affected by the horror of flooding—
will be affected by the damage compensation provisions of the Bill?
Can the Bill be defended if even the promoters acknowledge that some 1,700 properties will suffer some degree of ground water related damage if the barrage is built, and others fear it will be more?
Should you not find out more now about this controversial Bill and why the Cardiff Bay barrage should not be built? That is the view of local residents, not the view of Members of Parliament or those who have a particular interest and are pushing one case or the other. The individuals who are directly affected say that they do not want the carry-over motion to succeed.

Mr. Michael: It is the view of those who published the leaflet, not the view of residents within the area.

Mr. Davies: I offered my hon. Friend the opportunity to determine public opinion on the matter. I could not be fairer than that—

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Wood.]

The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 13.

Division No. 322]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Amess, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Arbuthnot, James
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Conway, Derek


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Ashby, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cran, James


Aspinwall, Jack
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Atkins, Robert
Curry, David


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dalyell, Tam


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Baldry, Tony
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dixon, Don


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dorrell, Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Peter
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Durant, Tony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Eastham, Ken


Bowis, John
Fallon, Michael


Boyes, Roland
Favell, Tony


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Burns, Simon
Fishburn, John Dudley


Butcher, John
Flynn, Paul


Butler, Chris
Fookes, Dame Janet


Callaghan, Jim
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Forth, Eric


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Freeman, Roger


Chope, Christopher
Gale, Roger





Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Monro, Sir Hector


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Goodlad, Alastair
Murphy, Paul


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Needham, Richard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Grist, Ian
Norris, Steve


Ground, Patrick
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Paice, James


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Patnick, Irvine


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Haynes, Frank
Pawsey, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Portillo, Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Price, Sir David


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Riddick, Graham


Howells, Geraint
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jack, Michael
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Jackson, Robert
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Janman, Tim
Ryder, Richard


Jessel, Toby
Sackville, Hon Tom


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kilfedder, James
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knox, David
Speller, Tony


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lang, Ian
Squire, Robin


Lawrence, Ivan
Stern, Michael


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lightbown, David
Sumberg, David


Lilley, Peter
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


McFall, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Trippier, David


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Trotter, Neville


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Maclean, David
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Major, Rt Hon John
Wallace, James


Malins, Humfrey
Waller, Gary


Mans, Keith
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Maples, John
Wheeler, Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Wood, Timothy


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Yeo, Tim


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Meale, Alan



Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Michael, Alun
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Miller, Sir Hal
Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Miscampbell, Norman



NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Pike, Peter L.


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Sillars, Jim


Cryer, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Hardy, Peter



Illsley, Eric
Tellers for the Noes:


McWilliam, John
Mr. Ron Davies and


Morgan, Rhodri
Mr. Ted Rowlands.


Nellist, Dave

Question accordingly agreed to.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Ron Davies: I seem to have a technical problem: I do not seem to have my notes. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) is expressing his condolences, but I was not prepared to leave them on my seat while my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) was guarding them. I am not suggesting for a moment that he would have taken them away, but there is a possibility that he might have reordered them.

Mr. Paul Flynn: I assure my hon. Friend that I do not have the slightest interest in reading his notes, having heard the identical speech for the fourth time.

Mr. Davies: I must correct my hon. Friend, because this is only the third time that I have made this speech. The first was on Second Reading, and the second was on the carry-over motion.
As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a considerable number of right hon. and hon. Members voted on the 10 o'clock motion, and we must place it on record that the House has decided that the debate should proceed. Therefore, I hope that no artificial device will be deployed later in an attempt to short-circuit the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has just returned from the Lobby, having voted with more than 160 other right hon. and hon. Members to continue the debate. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—out of respect for those of us who opposed the motion and who did not want the debate to continue until a late hour, but who will honour the decision—will not permit a closure motion later. I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will be consistent and will ensure that there is a full debate. I sincerely hope that he will not attempt to move a closure.

Mr. Michael: The whole gist of my argument was that we should have a full and proper debate on the Committee's report. My hon. Friend surely accepts that the rules of the House exist to protect all right hon. and hon. Members and are there for them to use. My hon. Friend uses them enthusiastically, so I am sure that he would not want to deny to others that same right.

Mr. Davies: We must all exercise our rights, as well as observe the rules of the House in the way that is intended. I was merely pointing out that the House had been given a clear demonstration that right hon. and hon. Members want to continue the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that it is important that we should thrash out the matters in question, so I hope that he will not seek now artifically to restrict the debate.
When moving the original carry-over motion, my hon. Friend said that we should endorse the development that has already occurred and not oppose any further development of the bay. I must make it abundantly clear yet again that we are not opposed to the development of Cardiff bay. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is rolling his eyes and tutting. He should not do so, but ought to take at face value the points that I and many other hon. Members want to put to him.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is among the bodies that want to see Cardiff bay developed. It devised, at considerable trouble and expense, an alternative scheme, which it presented to the Select Committee, development corporation, local authorities and Members of Parliament. The RSPB made it clear to us all that it is not opposed to the development of the bay. All that is in question is whether the barrage is a necessary prerequisite or will facilitate that development. There is considerable doubt about that. My hon. Friend must accept the considerable body of evidence presented to the Select Committee, suggesting that the development could proceed without the barrage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth should accept also that the development that has already been undertaken even before the barrage has been approved by Parliament is of a kind that he applauds and wants, and it can continue regardless of whether or not the barrage is built.

Mr. Michael: indicated dissent.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend should not shake his head. The proof of my argument is that which has already been built; the evidence has been presented to the Select Committee. The considerable development that has already occurred is proof positive that such work can progress without the barrage. He must accept that that is a considerable body of evidence.

Mr. Michael: It is not.

Mr. Davies: If my hon. Friend does not accept that, he must agree that there is evidence to that effect.
My hon. Friend also mentioned that there would be an improvement to the environment. He said that there would be a better future and a better environment. He knows that it is principally due to my concern about damage to the environment that I oppose the Bill. I hope that he understands that, because my views are sincerely held and are endorsed by hundreds of thousands of people in this country. My hon. Friend is right to say that those people are not directly affected as they do not live in Cardiff, but that does not invalidate their right to an opinion on whether the barrage is environmentally damaging. They have a right to an opinion because the environment of Cardiff bay is part of our common heritage in Britain.
I maintain that, although I live in my constituency of Caerphilly, I have as much right to express my anxiety about damage to the environment in Cardiff as anyone who lives there. People who live in Sandy in Bedfordshire, for example—the home of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—have an equally valid right to express their concern about the environment, because it does not belong to the people of Cardiff, but is part of our national natural heritage.
In some circumstances my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth argues the case for conservation internationally. I am sure that he will say that the persecution of cetaceans is wrong. I believe that he has made representations to the Norwegian Government about the persecution of some species of whale. He is entitled to do so, as whales are part of our international heritage, and as a Member of Parliament he has an international responsibility to discharge.
I know that my hon. Friend will join me in condemning the destruction of herds of African elephants for their


ivory. He nods in agreement. He accepts that such herds are part of our international heritage, and that the Governments and peoples of the countries where elephants are being destroyed have a responsibility to the international community to protect them.
The environment in Cardiff bay is of national and international importance in exactly the same way. Nationally, it is important because it has been declared such as a site of special scientific interest. Internationally, the site is important because the birds that use it are not restricted to Britain but include migrants. As a result, the bay has been awarded protection through our international obligations under Ramsar. The site is also covered by the European directive on the conservation of wild birds.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth does not deny that national Governments have a right to sign the Ramsar convention. The importance of the sites covered by Ramsar is international.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that we all have a responsibility for the environment in Cardiff. He cannot keep the right to destroy that environment to himself or to the people of Cardiff.
If it could he proved that there was an overwhelming need for the destruction of the environment there and for the development of the barrage to proceed he would have a case. Then we would be able to weigh up the relative benefits and importance of conservation areas against the economic benefits that would result from a development that was contingent on the destruction of the SSSI.If that were the case, my hon. Friend would have a strong point, but the economic case for the development has not been proved. That is why my hon. Friend must address the site of special scientific interest question: why is he prepared to support the destruction of part of our priceless natural heritage for an unproven and unquantifiable economic benefit?

Mr. Michael: I understand the philosophy that underlies what my hon. Friend says: that we have a mutual responsibility for the worldwide environment. However, the Taff-Ely SSSI is a site of national, not international, importance for wild birds. As part of the Severn estuary area, it constitutes a potential, but not an actual, protection area. I believe that the economic case has been made, that we have a responsibility to balance the economic and the environmental arguments, that in this specific location the environmental argument has none of the strength that my hon. Friend has sought to give to it and that it is certainly not comparable with other examples that he gave of sites of international importance.

Mr. Davies: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with a carry-over motion. I am sure that he will relate his remarks to the motion.

Mr. Davies: I shall do so precisely, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is precisely because conservation has not been dealt with properly, either by the promoters or in Committee, that I oppose the carry-over motion. The SSSI question was not addressed, either by the developers or in Committee. The Committee took a lot of evidence. It agreed that some of the operations would be very damaging and that there would be a considerable loss of

wildlife. However, the question of how the destruction of that priceless asset could be justified was not answered. My hon. Friend may say that that SSSI is more or less important than other SSSIs. I accept that there must be a gradation—that SSSIs may be of greater or lesser importance—but my hon. Friend has not answered certain questions.
First, why is the destruction of this SSSI justified? Why must it be destroyed, in the absence of overwhelming economic evidence? Secondly, and more crucially, if we allowed this SSSI, which deserves international protection, to be destroyed, how on earth could we deny the development of other SSSIs? My hon. Friend has not grasped the point that the destruction of one SSSI would lead to the destruction of the whole system. It would invalidate the protection that is offered to all the other SSSIs.

Mr. Michael: That does not follow.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend says that that does not follow. In what circumstances, therefore, would he oppose the development of other SSSIs?

Mr. Michael: I shall have to refrain from intervening so often, even though my hon. Friend is so provocative. However, he has just said that there must be a gradation and that one must consider whether a balance can be struck. My hon. Friend answered his own question; I do not need to do it for him. He has given no credence to the positive efforts that have been made to provide a lagoon alternative. It is a unique example of promoters seeking to provide positive conservation. He must surely concede that during the discussions undertakings were given to protect wildlife. Therefore, the carry-over motion should be agreed to so that these matters can be debated fully on Report.

Mr. Davies: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, I must remind the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) that too many detailed arguments cannot be advanced on a carry-over motion. Of course he wishes to illustrate why he opposes the carry-over motion, but during the debate on a motion of this kind all the details cannot be gone through.

Mr. Davies: I accept that entirely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall try to comply with your strictures. My hon. Friend made two points that are worthy of comment. I accept that there is an alternative. That was considered in Committee. I shall deal with the alternative later, since it is relevant to the carry-over motion.
As to the principle involved in designating SSSIs, of course I said that there must be a gradation. My view, however, is that if a site is accorded protection under British legislation it should be protected. The answer to the conundrum that my hon. Friend has posed is that all SSSIs should be protected from damaging operations.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: In my constituency there is the wonderful bay of Broughton, where the Nature Conservancy Council has designated a site of special scientific interest. A local farmer is concerned about the rate at which land is being eroded by the sea. I know that my hon. Friend is a former geographer and a specialist in these matters. He is interested in wave-cut platforms and various other marine features. The farmer to whom I have referred is concerned that the sea is taking away his land


at a remarkable rate, but the SSSI has been designated with a view to assisting the sea to erode the land even faster so that it will be possible to observe the glacial till that will become exposed. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that in certain circumstances, even when an SSSI has been designated, there may be a strong case for downgrading the designation. As I have said, I am aware of his expertise in these matters.

Mr. Davies: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that in responding to the intervention of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) will stay within the rules of order.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) has raised a fascinating topic for consideration, and it is one of which I am aware. The answer is not to allow development that will destroy the SSSI. If my hon. Friend feels that the area to which he has referred should not have been so designated, there must be case for the removal of the protected status. If that is removed, the development will take place. No one has attempted to argue, however, that the Cardiff bay site should not be designated. Everyone recognises that the site is of immense importance, but there are still those who wish to destroy it. That is the nub of the argument, and that is why Broughton is different from Cardiff.
When these matters were discussed on Second Reading—obviously we cannot repeat the Second Reading debate this evening—the director general of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds was quoted. You will be pleased to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the quote summarises the argument. By using the director's words rather than my own, I am sure that I can deal with the issue more quickly.
The director said:
Cardiff Bay is one of Wales' most prestigious natural assets, holding between 5–8,000 birds each winter, including dunlin, redshank, shelduck, teal and knot. Many of these birds travel thousands of miles from as far away as Iceland, Greenland and Siberia to winter on Cardiff's ice-free bay. The birds depend on this bay for their survival. We have an international responsibility to protect it."—[Official Report, 19 December 1989; Vol. 164, c. 305.]
I do not know who the chairman of the development corporation thinks he is when he sets himself up to be a greater expert on these matters than the director general of the RSPB, who has made it clear that the development is unacceptable.
We must recognise the importance of the site and prevent the acceptance of the carry-over motion at this juncture. If we defeat the motion, the House will be making a statement that it is committed to conservation.
The importance of the site was recognised by the South Glamorgan county council. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower has said that in 1979 the county council, in the preparation of its structure plan, which was subsequently approved, recognised the site as a conservation area. That was its future design for the bay. There was no objection to the classification and no attempt to remove it, until someone had the idea of constructing a barrage.
When I referred to the petitioners' objections, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth invited

me to refer the promoters' literature. The letter that he sent asking us to support the motion—I am sure that he will not mind my referring to it, because it is an open letter—says:
The Bill has the support of the Wales TUC and many individual organisations and trade unions in Wales and the locality. While there are still some opponents, it is clear that the Barrage will benefit Cardiff and South Wales substantially more than other schemes.
Not only are there still some opponents, but their number has been growing. He should have said, "It is true that there are more opponents than there were", but instead he said
there are still some opponents".
He also said,
It is clear that the barrage will benefit Cardiff.
I urge my hon. Friend to think again, because that has not been proved. He is arguing that we should destroy a priceless asset for an unquantifiable benefit. He does not appear to realise that, which is a source of some distress to me.
The letter continues:
There is to be an innovative new feeding ground for the displaced wading birds while the new cleaner environment will attract birds which have not hitherto been seen in the neighbourhood.
He argues that as a benefit of the development and attempts to persuade us to vote for the carry-over motion on that basis. The lake was the subject of detailed consideration in Committee. The new birds that my hon. Friend refers to were the subject of a question put by the promoters to their own witness. They said, "What will these birds be?". They will be swans perhaps, mallard perhaps and a few seagulls perhaps. In conservation terms, the provision of an area of open water to facilitate swans and mallard does not constitute much compensation for the loss of an internationally important feeding ground for thousands of endangered waders.

Mr. Michael: I invite my hon. Friend to read the evidence that has been provided, including the published document commissioned by the development corporation from the Wildfowl Trust—obviously it would be inappropriate to deal with that in this debate—which deals in extenso with the matter. He is trying to denigrate an important development for an inner-city area of great dereliction.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend should not make such accusations. I have the evidence given by Dr. John Goss Custard from the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, who was the expert witness called by the promoters. On day eight—it appears on page 24 of the evidence—he was asked by the promoters:
As an ornithologist could you perhaps just indicate which sort of wildfowl are likely to be attracted to the impounded waters? A. I should think, given the numbers of people that are likely to be in the vicinity, rather common ones such as mute swans and mallards and birds of that kind. That would be my guess.
That is the evidence of the promoters. I leave my hon. Friend to reply to that point if he feels it appropriate.
The people who oppose the motion include all the conservation bodies that have considered the evidence submitted to the Committee. I do not want unnecessarily to delay the House, but I have the detailed questioning—

Mr. Morgan: There is another hour to go.

Mr. Davies: There is certainly another hour. My hon. Friend is trying to encourage me, but we must not unnecessarily delay the House. I shall not go into the detail of that argument, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be grateful for that.
I wish to reply briefly to some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West, who has been encouraging me to turn my attention to him. He has been involved in the debate. On Second Reading, we had a difference of opinion about the conservation value of the site and what would happen to the birds. I asked the RSPB whether it would write to my hon. Friend, and I know that it did so, because I have a copy of the letter. I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind my reading it. The RSPB wrote:
The fate of estuarine birds displaced is complex and not fully researched. Experts advising both Promoters and Petitioners against the Bill agree that a large proportion of those displaced by a barrage would not be able to 'fit in' elsewhere, or would displace other birds in turn. The availability of suitable habitat is finite; areas of international importance such as the Severn estuary, of which the Taff/Ely is a part, are to be treasured accordingly. Loss of an important part would cause an overall nett loss in the world population of species affected. The Promoters accept that some loss will have to be compensated for, by introducing a measure in the Bill to create an artificially engineered mudflat system at the Wentloog Levels… As to the 'adaptability' of nature"—
I hope that this point will persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West that we should stop the passage of the Bill—
we believe that nature does not adapt, rather that some bird species take advantage of conditions artificially created by man which mimic (accidentally or by design) natural conditions. An example is the crow".
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West is aware of the argument. The RSPB's view is clear. In a briefing submitted to us, it said:
What will happen to the birds? If the barrage is built and the bay flooded, the wading birds displaced will have to seek their fortunes elsewhere. Birds such as knot, dunlin and redshank will attempt to find fresh feeding grounds and many will fail. They will find that the size of the larder available in the Severn—indeed in all other estuaries within flying range—is limited. In most years, all the best alternative feeding areas are full up with other birds. Many will be excluded from feeding in these areas by competition from other birds, and will die of starvation. Some will successfully displace other birds from their feeding grounds. Those birds in turn will die.
This phenomenon will not take place instantaneously, so no spectacular heap of birds will accumulate. Over a short period of time, birds will disperse elsewhere—some may travel well away from Cardiff in search of food. They will die in ones and twos, many crawling into a secluded place to expire. Imagine the public outcry if honourable members sanctioned the mass destruction of 5,000 birds by, say, shooting or poison. There would be a heap of bodies for the popular press to feast upon. There would be a scandal of major proportions. Elected representatives, be they councillors or members of this House, would not get re-elected because of the outcry. What is being proposed in this Bill by South Glamorgan County Council and the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation, aided and abetted by the Welsh Office, will have the same effect on birds as buckshot or poison.

Mr. Gary Waller: The hon. Gentleman wholly misrepresents the balance of the evidence given to the Committee. I do not believe that even those people who appeared on behalf of those who objected to the Bill suggested a scenario along those lines. How many of the books published by the RSPB or any other body concerned with birds suggest that Cardiff bay is a location to which those interested in seeing birds should go?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) is going to comment on that intervention, I am sure that he will relate his remarks to the carry-over motion.

Mr. Davies: I do not particularly want to get involved in that matter. I assure the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) that I shall write to him, giving a full answer.

Mr. Morgan: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies: Having suggested that it would be inappropriate for me to reply to the intervention of the hon. Member for Keighley, I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule that it was similarly inappropriate for me to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West—at least if he wants to develop the same argument.

Mr. Morgan: I wanted to point out what was wrong with the argument.

Mr. Davies: I hope that my hon. Friend will be making an intervention—albeit perhaps a brief one—later in the debate.
My final point concerns the promoters' case as outlined in the glossy book that they have handed out. They refer to "the living environment", and say that considerable improvements will result from the development. There is a lovely photograph of high tide in the bay, but there is precious little substance to the text, which reads:
An exciting new development in practical conservation will be the new 55 acre feeding ground for overwintering birds at Wentloog some 3·5 miles east of the bay. This will be partial compensation for the loss of the mudflats to be covered by the lake. The Severn Estuary has 39,000 more acres of … designated inter-tidal area, including the River Rhymney, which the Corporation will protect and enhance as a particularly important feeding ground.
The promoters appear to be making two points. First, they are implying that, because there are a further 39,000 acres, it is all right to destroy those affected by the Bill. I reject that argument. If they can destroy one part of the bay, they can come back next year and say, "There are still 39,000 acres; let us have another 1,000." Who will we be to stop them if we have not said no at this stage?
Secondly, the promoters claim that an exciting new development in practical conservation is to take place. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has invited us to consider that in deciding whether we should allow the Bill to proceed. Less than 1 acre is being provided for every 10 acres being destroyed. I do not think that that is a particularly good bargain. I do not regard it as an exciting new development in practical conservation to destroy 500 acres of protected wildlife habitat and to provide 50 acres as compensation.
Even if one accepts, as I do, incidentally, that the development corporation is trying to offer compensation—perhaps it realises the damage that it is wreaking and feels that it must do something—one must accept that what is being proposed is not very satisfactory. The site will be an area scooped out of the shore of the Severn. There will be no natural drainage, so it will be impossible to recreate the habitats that are to be destroyed. We are not talking about an area that will be flooded once or twice a day, enriching the bed that provides the invertebrate food that attracts the birds; there will not be any. The promoters will not be creating the environment that has been lost.
Moreover—and this is worse—the site is adjacent to a large refuse tip, which presents two further problems. First, there will be a considerable amount of leaching out of the refuse tip and that will pollute the lagoon. Even if we assume that that will not happen—although why we should assume that, I do not know—we know for sure that thousands and thousands of gulls feed on that tip. Those gulls will prevent the lagoon from becoming a refuge for the secretive, sensitive wading birds for which it has been provided. As the gulls feed, they fly up and roost on the water. If dunlin and redshank were attracted, they would certainly be driven off by the gulls.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Perhaps my hon. Friend can help me over the management of gulls on waste disposal sites. Are not there ways of preventing gulls from reaching the sites, including the use of falcons?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) will help me by referring rather more closely to the carry-over motion.

Mr. Davies: I hope that the development corporation will not get the idea that falcons will help them to attract wading birds. I am sure that they would get rid of gulls but I am afraid that the redshank, the dunlin and the knot would go with them. They are not usually very happy to be overflown by sparrowhawks and goshawks, which are the predators that prey on most birds, although peregrines might do the job as well.
Let us get back to the point. We will have a scoop taken out of the shore, which is supposed to be attractive to those birds, next to a refuse tip that has thousands of gulls and where leaching comes into the water. In addition, many high-voltage electricity cables pass overhead. I do not know whether the development corporation is proposing to relocate them, but one can imagine the carnage that could be created. I am sure that while the redshanks are still in Cardiff my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will have taken the opportunity to have a look at them and that he will have noticed their formations as they take off into flight. High-voltage overhead cables will not do their formation dancing much good. That is another problem, and another reason why I do not think that the barrage is a good idea. We should not accept it.
In addition, the barrage is an experiment. Why on earth should we be prepared to accept the destruction of something that we know is good and valuable for something which is unquantified and unproven? The new lagoon will have to be maintained—at what cost and for how long we do not know. Presumably, the public will have to pay in the short term. We do not know what is going to happen, but we do know that the conditions that are necessary to provide feeding opportunities for waders will be destroyed in that maintenance process. One cannot bring in bulldozers and dredgers to dredge the mud—although it will have to be done to prevent the site silting up—and still maintain the area as a quiet, peaceful, settled refuge for wildlife. When my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth says that an alternative is being provided, we must stop for a moment and look at what is being presented.
There are many arguments. I do not think that the development corporation has understood the deep-rooted

objections of environmentalists or the problems associated with groundwater in Cardiff. I know that that matter concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West and that he will seek to comment on it in a moment or two. In addition, local people are concerned about their local circumstances—about their homes, livelihoods and immediate environment. In conjunction with them, hundreds of thousands of other people are concerned at the destruction of the environment which belongs to us. Those two views represent an overwhelming coalition opposed to the barrage. That overwhelming case is why I oppose the barrage and why I hope that the carry-over motion will not be carried and that we shall put a stop to this sorry saga once and for all.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I rise to make the case against the carry-over motion because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), as I oppose the Bill, I must therefore oppose the carry-over motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) made an eloquent and moving speech which we shall take fully into account. He referred to a most distinguished member of the city council, Councillor John Reynolds. John Reynolds and I fought as candidates for the nomination for the Cardiff, North seat in 1966. I was successful and entered the House a couple of weeks later. Such was the quality of Councillor John Reynolds then—as it remained throughout his life—that, despite the vivid disappointment of that occasion, he never gave less than unstinting support; in every sense, he backed me throughout my time as the hon. Member for Cardiff, North while he continued as a Cardiff councillor. Like my hon. Friend, I wish to pay him that tribute.
A distinguished socialist once said that socialism is the language of priorities. If it is, we must oppose this Bill on public expenditure grounds. I first raised this matter in the debate on the carry-over motion on 14 November last year. I was never called to order during my speech, because the financial consequences of Bills for public expenditure are fundamental to the nature of parliamentary accountability. My case this evening is that, in the context of the Welsh Office budget and the needs of the Principality, I and many other Welsh Members oppose the level of expenditure that the Bill—and, it seems, Welsh Office Ministers and the Chancellor—would endorse.
I make no apology for raising this issue again. It has been my role in debates on this Bill to discuss its implications for public expenditure. We must establish what have been, what are and what will be the public expenditure consequences of the Bill before deciding whether to carry it over.
I am sorry to chide my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, as I did in the debate in November last year and on Second Reading. He made an eloquent speech about the character of the Bill and its impact on his part of the city, but, as a major supporter of the Bill, he never said a single word about its public expenditure consequences. That might not be his function here, but it is certainly the function of the Minister. On the two previous occasions when this Bill was debated, the Minister confined himself to some rather modest and


peripheral remarks, but tonight we hope for a rather deeper analysis from him of the implications for Welsh Office expenditure.

Mr. Michael: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not chide me for welcoming investment in my constituency which will bring benefit to my constituents in terms of the local economy and jobs. I am sure he would do the same if investment came to his constituency.
I mentioned earlier the background information with which I have supplied my hon. Friends, although that is more a matter for discussion on Report.

Mr. Rowlands: Of course I do not chide my hon. Friend for his efforts on behalf of his constituents. But the Bill that he brings to the House has enormous implications for Welsh public expenditure. Huge amounts of public expenditure should not be discussed on Report. They are to do with mainstream, fundamental parliamentary accountability and they should be discussed root and branch in a debate on whether to allow the Bill to carry over. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and I have had this exchange once before, but I maintain that this is not a matter for Report stage. This is a fundamental matter; if the Bill is not carried over it goes back to the start. My arguments are not about Report but about the very nature of the Bill and its public expenditure consequences.
I hope that I am not being too presumptuous when I say that I have taken a lead in expressing a concern that is shared by other hon. Members in that I have drawn to the attention of hon. Members the public expenditure aspects of the Bill. I shall attempt to identify the public expenditure related to the Bill. The front of the Bill shows two figures. Paragraph 3 states:
The expenditure on construction of the proposed works is estimated at £82,230,000. The expenditure on the acquisition of lands and easements for the works is estimated at £2,550,000.
I shall return to those figures.
It is strange that exactly the same amounts were shown in the original Bill. I understand the procedural problems involved in amending a financial memorandum. Are those two amounts still valid? Have they been updated? We should bear in mind that they are only one aspect of the financial consequences of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will give us that information. That is not the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. It is the responsibility of the Minister, because I assume that the financial memorandum must be endorsed by the Treasury.

Mr. Morgan: The truth, if the Minister were willing to state it, is that the face of the Bill should show that expenditure will be whatever it costs eventually to build the barrage. The amount does not matter to the Welsh Office so long as it saves the face of the last Secretary of State for Wales but one.

Mr. Rowlands: I am trying to be as objective as possible. Let us examine the matter stage by stage and figure by figure. I should not go as far as my hon. Friend, although there is some substantiation for his point in Hansard. In the debate on 19 December last year, the figures given did not even remotely represent the total public expenditure consequences of carrying out the scheme. On that date, the Minister said that £31·5 million would be available this year. He said:

over the next three years, Government funding would total £100 million, bringing the total amount given, or announced, to date to some £150 million."—[Official Report, 19 December 1989; Vol. 164, c. 308.]
Over and above the financial memorandum on the face of the original Bill, there was a straightforward admission that there was a formal commitment. It was not prospective but committed money to the tune of £150 million over three years.

Mr. Michael: I should like to clarify a constituency point that I am sure my hon. Friend will understand. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the Minister must answer for the Welsh Office. In the financial requirements, things that will happen anyway have to be counted in and included on the face of the Bill. For example, roads have to be included because that is how definition of these matters goes. The provision of alternative sites for wading birds, water quality and dredging are also included, as are matters such as sewer diversification and modification, which will cost £13·8 million. All these projects will go ahead anyway, but the requirements of the legislative process are such that they have to be included in the figures used in the Bill, although they are essential for bringing new life to this derelict part of south Cardiff, with which my hon. Friend is familiar. I am sure that he will accept that we should be looking at those aspects that are dependent on the barrage, which is the subject of the Bill before us, rather than at other aspects which, by accident of legal requirement, have to be included in it, or at the other work of the development corporation that is not dependent on the Bill.

Mr. Rowlands: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. We have had this discussion on previous occasions, and I understand that included in the broad total is expenditure that would be necessary anyway, and that it would be best to identify the two. Let us identify the two, and then we can unravel the figures, and let us not say that the total cost of the barrage is anything like that given in the Bill.
I shall first develop my point, although I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend at each and every stage because I am in the process of being educated, as I hope that I shall educate my hon. Friend. We also need educating by the Minister.
One of the most amazing things ever said by the Minister came in the debate last December. Having announced that £150 million would be allocated, he then said something that I would love him to say about the valleys initiative, or about any other project that any hon. Member representing a Welsh constituency advocated. He said:
Beyond that, we will ensure that sufficient funding will be made available to enable the corporation to carry through its task."—[Official Report, 19 December 1989; Vol. 164, c. 308.]
That simple statement means that the Cardiff Bay development corporation will be given by the Welsh Office whatever funds it requires to finish its task.
I wish that this or any previous Secretary of State had made such a staterhent about the needs of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, so that if the costs of a project there escalate, or the whole thing goes awry, or the financial assumptions behind it are wrong—as the barrage scheme is heavily involved in property, the environment now and the future environment lead to some doubts about the financial forecasts of the scheme—the Welsh Office will fund the task of the corporation. That is an enormous


commitment, and its open-ended character must be of concern to any hon. Member representing a Welsh constituency, because we are fighting for the same money.
We have all been in this game long enough to know that Chancellors are right when they say that there is not a bottomless pit, that there are priorities in, and competing demands for, public expenditure. We all have to make difficult and often odious choices. As a Member representing a traditional community, I have every reason to say that we would love to be told, "Beyond that, we will ensure that sufficient funding will be made available to enable Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney to carry through its tasks." I should love to have such a commitment from Welsh Office Ministers. Because it has been given once, we are concerned that it might be given again—but it all has to come from one budget. We spend that budget in a gentlemanly and comradely fashion, having competed for it in our different ways. It is a matter of great concern and I shall not support the motion.
Even if I considered that statement to have been an aberration, or simply that it required qualification, I should wish us to consider the current public expenditure commitment compared with the commitment when we last discussed the issue. I first raised the question of expenditure on various items during our debate on a carry-over motion on 14 November last. I suspect that the original cost of about £82 million was to cover the capital infrastructure costs of the barrage. What is the figure now?

Mr. Michael: I wish to help my hon. Friend, so that we do not spend too much time on questions that can easily be answered. The £8·27 million includes the barrage structure, the locks, the refuge harbour, the fish passes and the sluices—and roads and services. That is my point: it includes elements that would be required anyway.

Mr. Rowlands: That is a compendium of elements. I was given a document today. I have not had time to go through it, and no doubt my hon. Friend can educate me as we proceed. The document is entitled, "Cardiff bay barrage—planning update and economic appraisal statement." I am sure that the Minister has it to hand. It is dated 5 January 1990. It is a revised review of the public expenditure consequences.
From appendix 1, table 2, it appears that the barrage infrastructure cost—not including roads or all the other elements mentioned by my hon. Friend—total £125·5 million. That is not £82 million. Is that correct?

Mr. Michael: The figure does not include the other elements.

Mr. Rowlands: It does not?

Mr. Michael: No.

Mr. Rowlands: Below that figure comes a whole host of industrial costs such as demolition and clearance, service diversions and so on. I totted up those figures and they came to £148 million—that is, additional to the £125·5 million. I shall come to the bottom figure in a moment.
On improved access, the review shows that the PDR-Butetown link plus other road schemes, car parking and a light rapid transport system will cost £152 million. We all agree that the PDR-Butetown link is essential, and

it is currently on the books at £95·9 million. What was the figure when we last debated the issue? There has been a substantial increase.

Mr. Morgan: When the Cardiff Bay development corporation was established, the estimated cost of the PDR-Butetown link was £50 million, but its outturn cost is now estimated to be £126 million. The Minister is shaking his head. Perhaps he wishes to correct me. I was supplied with that figure by the department within the county council that will have the responsibility of commissioning the building of the road.
The additional £76 million has been caused entirely by the CBDC asking the county council, in 1987, not to proceed but to wait until there had been various design changes. That additional £76 million must be loaded on to the costs of the interference of the CBDC. That would not have happened if the CBDC had not been established to build the barrage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is dealing with the finances in considerable detail. I hope that he will link it to the carry-over motion.

Mr. Rowlands: I most certainly will. When I come to the bottom figure even your jaw might drop, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we carry the motion over, we will endorse a public expenditure consequence of the Bill even greater than that which we were asked to endorse at the end of last year. I am seeking information on the limits and extremities of the Bill so that I may come to a conclusion on it, although my objections to it are pretty fundamental anyway.
According to the revised document, the barrage infrastructure cost is £125 million; industrial relocations, demolition and land reclamation I crudely totted up at about £148 million; improved access and the road schemes, £152 million; environmental improvements such as landscaping, water features, and so on, £96 million; and other projects, £25 million. The sum total of that list is £547·29 million.
When we debated the matter on 19 December, the Minister admitted:
The total cost to the development corporation is estimated…to be some £402 million."—[Official Report, 19 December; Vol. 164, c. 309.]
Is the £402 million equivalent to the present figure of £547 million? If not, what should be deducted from the £547 million? That figure of £402 million, not the £82 million on the face of the Bill, is the total public expenditure Welsh Office consequence of the Bill.

Mr. Michael: No.

Mr. Rowlands: It is. My hon. Friend is getting het up. We can deduct from that the Butetown link and the rest, but we are now talking about more than £400 million gross. Am I reading the appendices correctly when I say that the £402 million figure is now £547 million?

Mr. Michael: I simply make the point that my hon. Friend is including figures that have nothing to do with the Bill even under the definition which draws in things such as the roads, because the development is in south Cardiff, as well as the elements which are on the face of the Bill, many of which, as I explained earlier, would have to take


place anyway. There is an element of confusion, although I accept entirely that my hon. Friend is an earnest seeker after truth in these matters.

Mr. Rowlands: I am an earnest seeker after truth. The £547 million figures comes from the "Cardiff bay barrage—planning update and economic appraisal statement", not from Cardiff or South Glamorgan. Therefore, any hon. Member would have to conclude that the £547 million relates to the barrage and its financial consequences. It is not every bit of expenditure in South Glamorgan or in the city of Cardiff; it is related, in one form or another, to the cost of the Cardiff bay barrage and its consequences. Half that amount would probably be essential in another development.
I am not arguing about that. I am simply saying that, whereas at the end of last year we had a figure of a little more than £400 million, we now have a figure of about £547 million. To save time, will the Minister say whether the previous figure of £402 million equates with the present figure of £547 million? Are they comparable figures or is there anything substantially different in them? Well, I hope that the Minister will allow us to intervene on his speech so that that point can be cleared up.

Mr. Bob Cryer: It seems to me that, if the carry-over motion were approved tonight, that approval would in a sense endorse all the financial confusion. If my hon. Friend is saying that all this financial information must be clarified before we proceed any further with the Bill, that, surely, is a strong argument for opposing the motion.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend has made very forcefully a point that I made in regard to the last carry-over motion—and we lost that vote, although I do not think that we lost the argument.
I feel that, given the public expenditure consequences of private Bills of this size—especially when they involve Welsh Office collusion to such an extent, and an open-ended cheque book too—we have a right to argue our case. Although I am a passionate supporter of public expenditure, I also accept that it is all about priorities: the money must come from somewhere, and in this instance it will come from other budgets which are of vital concern to other parts of the Principality.
One of my fundamental criticisms of private Bill procedure is that, when—after a Committee has spent weeks considering the issues—one of us asks a simple question about the likely cost, as any hon. Member might do on the Floor of the House, the most that we get is some vague statement. I quoted a marvellous one on 14 November, which said that the cost might be between £75 million and £125 million. That is the order of the evidence given by—on that occasion—the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation.
Even those of us who, like me, are passionate supporters of public expenditure are supposed to be vigilant in that regard. I really do not feel that we can pass the motion without much more clarification than has so far been provided—and, in any event, the public expenditure consequences of the Bill are bound to be enormous.
Expanding on the third point that I raised, I accept that I am treading on less firm ground: here I must deal with city expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) can speak about Cardiff

much more effectively than I can; I have been speaking about the needs and budgetary priorities of Wales as a whole. My hon. Friend is right to fight for his patch, but I am fighting with equal vigour to ensure that his fight does not cause an unwelcome ripple effect in communities such as mine.
This scheme is, in effect, an enormous plan to build houses—very high-class ones, in many instances—that is, in the main, supposedly led by private enterprise. I do not think it improper of me to ask how it can be described as a private-enterprise-led scheme when it will require about £550 million of public money—and not in the form of a loan or a guarantee, but in the form of public grant from the Welsh Office budget. We are encountering some curious semantics when huge slugs of public money are described as "private enterprise".
Following the pre-empting of significant amounts of Welsh Office money, the benefit to the city council will be non-existent. It is for the electors to decide whether they wish to carry the burden. However, I feel that I should point out that, after all that public money has been invested, the result will be an operational loss per annum.
Earlier, my hon. Friend told me that I had got my figures wrong. I accepted that, and went away with my tail between my legs. Originally, I was told that the figure was only £400,000 per annum, and that it was modest by comparison with the cost of running Cardiff's parks, and so on. How sanguine should we be in the light of the revised economic appraisal? As at January, the net operating costs are now said to be not £400,000 but £1·3 million. Am I interpreting table 3 in appendix I correctly? It seems to me that it relates to the same figures that were the subject of our earlier argument, when my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth sought to educate me.
The forecast revenue has increased from £470 million to only £480 million, but the costs have risen to £1·8 million, and the net operating costs—which I suppose to mean the net annual operating deficit—are now set at £1·35 million.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is placing a fair interpretation on the figures. The corporation will bear the cost during its lifetime, and the successor body—which we assume will be the local authority—will not have to burden the community charge, or the successor to it that I hope will be in place by then, because the corporation's assets will then be available. The intention is to create sufficient revenue to fund the cost. That is why I made the comparison with the £3 million needed for Cardiff's parks. I assure my hon. Friend that aspect has been carefully considered by my colleagues on Cardiff city council.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend offers a different argument from that which he produced when we last debated the matter, when he told me that the annual cost would be a mere £400,000. At least he is now admitting that, in the course of just nine months, that figure has increased to £1·3 million. I am glad to have that valid comparison made clear.
My hon. Friend says that after the corporation is wound up its assets will be handed over to the successor body and will produce sufficient revenue to cover the operating costs. Those assets will have been created from the enormous grant made by the Welsh Office, and we must assume that, at the end of it all, there will be a substantial potential profit. I ask the Minister, as I have


before, whether the Welsh Office will be able to claw back any portion of the £400 million originally mentioned, or the £550 million now suggested, that it is to make available?
If some of the profits are to return to the Welsh Office, at least a proportion of them could be recycled to the benefit of Merthr Tydfil and Rhymney and other parts of the Principality. Can the Minister say whether any part of the Welsh Office's £550 million commitment to the development corporation will be returned not to the city's coffers—because it is not local but Welsh money, provided by taxpayers nationally—but to the Welsh Office?
I have previously begged the Minister to answer that fundamental question, and I hope that he will do so on this occasion. In terms of public expenditure, besides all the environmental arguments, I cannot support a carry-over motion for the Bill when the public expenditure consequences will not merely have such great significance for parts of Cardiff, but could be to the considerable detriment and loss of the rest of the Principality, and to the communities which I represent.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): I join the hon. Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) in paying tribute to the work of councillors who serve on the corporation in Cardiff, and especially the late Councillor John Reynolds, who was a political opponent. I remember him standing for Cardiff, North. He was a thoroughly principled man, and a true friend of Cardiff.
It may be helpful if I give the House a brief indication of the Government's position on the Bill and the amendments made by the Committee. The House will know from previous debates that the Government have a substantial interest in the objectives of the Bill.
We have carefully considered the detailed and wide-ranging evidence on all aspects of a barrage across the estuaries of the Taff and Ely, and concluded that the economic case is very strong, even taking into account the environmental considerations. The Government believe therefore that the construction of a barrage and the substantial economic, recreational and other benefits arising from it are the key to the redevelopment of the Cardiff bay area. This imaginative and high-quality redevelopment will transform not just our capital city, but the wider economy of south Wales and the image of Wales as a whole. I am glad to say that this view was not seriously challenged by the majority of the Committee.
We are pleased that the Committee, having considered all the evidence, has recommended that the Bill should be allowed to proceed subject to a number of amendments and undertakings, mainly relating to groundwater. It is right that the Committee should reflect the genuine concerns expressed during its lengthy and detailed examination of the evidence and, for our part, the Government would not wish to differ from their recommendations.
As this is the first opportunity to debate the Bill since it emerged from Committee, the House may also find it helpful if I say briefly how my right hon. Friend the

Secretary of State proposes to fulfil the undertakings that he gave to the Committee in respect of his consideration of further work on groundwater.
My right hon. Friend has appointed Mr. Roy Stoner, director of the Institute of Irrigation Studies at Southampton university, as an independent expert to assist him in fulfilling the undertaking. Mr. Stoner is an eminent specialist in groundwater and related matters and has considerable personal experience on such projects world-wide. His appointment should command the support of all parties.

Mr. Morgan: Would the Minister spell that name please?

Mr. Grist: S-T-O-N-E-R, as it is pronounced.
The independent adviser's first task will be to confirm, by the end of this month, whether the terms of reference for the further studies by Hydrotechnica are adequate.
Once the report on the further groundwater studies and the development corporation's response have been submitted to the Secretary of State, there will be a three-month period during which written representations on the contents of those documents may be made to the Secretary of State by interested parties. The independent adviser will then advise my right hon. Friend on whether the terms of reference have been met, on the soundness of the assumptions, working methods and conclusions, on written representations and the adequacy of information on the various criteria. I expect my right hon. Friend to be able to announce his decision on public funding and the final position of the protected property line, taking into account all of these factors, early in 1992.

Mr. Morgan: Can the Minister say whether the Dr. Stoner to whom he refers has any familiarity with Cardiff? The reason why I ask is that there has been a wide separation in the professional advice received as between geologists, engineers and other experts who are from or work in Cardiff, virtually all of whom are against the barrage, as they think it unsafe, and those experts who have been commissioned but have no familiarity with the area in question, all of whom turn out to be in favour of the barrage. Will the Minister reflect on that and say whether Dr. Stoner has any working familiarity with the groundwater particularities of Cardiff?

Mr. Grist: To be perfectly frank, I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman. If he has any grounds for doubting the technical competence and the expertise of Mr. Stoner I am sure that he will let us know. I do not believe, however, that the hon. Gentleman will find that that is so. Mr. Stoner is a world-wide expert on these matters.
As the House is aware, the Government have already made available, or announced, very significant levels of funding for the corporation—more than £150 million to date. If my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the economic, technical and safety criteria in respect of the further work on groundwater have been met, we intend to honour our long-standing commitment that the cost of the barrage will be met by the development corporation, with the assistance of grant-in-aid from the Welsh Office.
I must point out to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) that the most recent economic appraisal of the barrage strategy estimates its overall public sector costs to be £335 million at


mid-1989–90 prices. The two main elements of the strategy are the construction of the barrage itself and the construction of the Butetown link section of the PDR.
The Government have already made plain their commitment to provide funding for the barrage through grant-in-aid, subject now to the satisfactory completion of further work on groundwater, to which I referred earlier. The corporation will also be generating income from the disposal of assets and will be drawing in money from the private sector, all of which will go towards the funding of its barrage strategy.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney should not have overlooked in his peroration the fact that the valleys programme has led to the expenditure of some £500 million in threé years. I do not think that he expects the Welsh Office to receive a refund of that money. That is part of the investment in the future wellbeing of Wales, and that is precisely what the barrage strategy is also designed to achieve.

Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman is racing through his figures. He referred to the figure of £335 million. Is he saying that the figure of £402 million that he gave to us in December is now £335 million? Are we comparing like with like?

Mr. Grist: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a fairly gratifying drop in the amount of public sector money, due to the introduction of private sector finance. He ought to welcome the injection of finance by the development corporation if he is so mindful of public finance.

Mr. Rowlands: Table 2 in the appendix to the economic appraisal published in January quoted a gross figure of £547 million. What proportion of that figure is Welsh Office funded?

Mr. Grist: I think that the hon. Gentleman is looking at an outturn figure. The outturn figure for the barrage is estimated at £147·7 million.

Mr. Rowlands: The document entitled "Cardiff bay barrage—planning update and economic appraisal statement" dated 15 January 1990 gives, in table 2 of appendix 1, a summary of individual project investments. The barrage figure is £125 million. The rest comes to a grand total of £547 million. What proportion of the £547 million will be Welsh Office funded?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman cites a figure that I do not have before me. I have given him the figures that I have, which relate to the motion before the House. We estimate that the barrage strategy itself, at 1989 prices, will be £335 million. There would clearly be funding from many other sources. The leverage with a barrage is twice that which would be available without it. That is a measure of the importance of the barrage for the regeneration of south Cardiff and the area around Cardiff.
Therefore, I believe that the Bill as amended in Committee, where it was given detailed examination, should be allowed to proceed so that it can be further considered. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, these matters could then be thrashed out in much greater detail.

Mr. Win Griffiths: In opposing the carry-over motion, I shall refer at a little length to the document provided for us by the Cardiff Bay development corporation and the South Glamorgan county council, which we found in yesterday's post. It is part of the preparation for the debate. In a well-presented folder there are set out the arguments why we should be prepared to support the motion and allow the debate to continue on the Bill. Unfortunately, from the point of view of the promoters, having read the brochure produced by the development corporation and the county council, I have not been persuaded to change my view about the need for a barrage to be constructed to ensure a successful development of the Cardiff bay area.
The debate on the need for a carry-over motion to enable us further to consider the Bill is closely related to the type of development which needs to take place in Cardiff, and I am still of the view that there can be successful redevelopment of the bay area without the barrage being built. I remain convinced, therefore, that I should oppose the carry-over motion.
I shall refer briefly to the cogent arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on the public expenditure considerations of the barrage. Perhaps I should remind him that it was that incomparable popular singer, Shirley Bassey, who made a great name for herself with a song, among others, entitled "Hey Big Spender". Shirley Bassey comes from Tiger bay, which is part of the area that will be the beneficiary of all the public expenditure. It is—[interruption.] I hear from sounds off that Shirley Bassey came from Splott. That may be the precise area from which she came, but everyone in the world associates her with Tiger bay first, second and third. We are entering into some procedural, academic and semantic niceties by referring to Splott, but it will benefit from the redevelopment of the south Cardiff area.

Mr. Flynn: I do not wish to bring about a feeling of deja vu by repeating my previous performances when considering the Bill—other hon. Members have not shown the same restraint—but to suggest that Splott and Tiger bay are really one and the same place is an affront. It is as dangerous as saying that Upper Cwmtwrch and Lower Cwmtwrch are one and the same place. Shirley Bassey hails from the splendid Portmanmoor road, and she would be greatly insulted if it were suggested that she came from Tiger bay, which is a different part of Cardiff altogether.

Mr. Griffiths: I should hate to go into all the arguments. I am sure that you will agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that according to popular mythology, which is important, Shirley Bassey hails from Tiger bay.
As a student at Cardiff university I lived in Habershon street, which is not far from Portmanmoor road, and can therefore attest to the need to redevelop the area. However, the question is whether the barrage is essential to the prosperous and successful redevelopment of Cardiff. I believe that it is not essential.
Some of the arguments advanced in the brochure, ignoring the economic case, given even more reason to oppose the motion. Once again, my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney did us a good service in revealing much of the associated cost of the development and mentioned a figure of about £500


million. The Minister, who for the time being at least has an interest in Cardiff as he is the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central, said that the figure is now about £335 million. Even if we accept that figure, it is much more than the £125·55 million quoted in the brochure, which attempts to outline the reasons why the barrage should be allowed.

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman is probably muddling the figure of £335 million with the figure of £ 125·55 million for the barrage. The figure of £335 million includes the PDR expenditure.

Mr. Griffiths: I am grateful to the Minister for pointing that out, but the barrage is the contentious part of the total scheme for the redevelopment of south Cardiff. We doubt whether all the additional expenditure will be worthwhile for the Welsh economy. No doubt there will be spin offs for the economy of south Wales in the redevelopment of south Cardiff, but we are saying that the money provided for the barrage could be better spent in other parts of south Wales.
I want to draw the House's attention to two pages in the brochure, one entitled "Prevention of Flooding" and the other "Bay Water Quality". The section on prevention of flooding states:
There will be a lower risk of flooding in Cardiff when the Barrage is built.
Good.
The Barrage will keep out the very high tides, and at high tide the Barrage will provide adequate storage for river flood waters until low tide allows the sluices to be opened and the water drained off.
Good.
Co-operation between the Development Corporation and all public bodies concerned with flood prevention is built into the Bill.
Good.
As the flood protection authority (the National Rivers Authority) says, 'the Barrage will not reduce the level of protection provided by existing flood defences and may create a worthwhile improvement.'
Good.
If we accept the word of the National Rivers Authority, the building of the barrage will help prevent flooding in south Cardiff. I certainly hope that that will be so, and it is good that that hope is buttressed by the authority and scientific knowledge of the National Rivers Authority.

Mr. Morgan: That view is totally contradicted by the Cardiff Bay development corporation's consultants, Wallace Evans and Partners. In their May 1988 report, they wrote:
The results demonstrate that draining down the impounded bay before the arrival of a peak flood does not produce any real benefit for the high discharge event. This is because the bulk of the flood volume around the peak is far greater than the storage volume being made available.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. I was aware of the dispute about the evidence, but at least we had the authoritative statement by the National Rivers Authority that the barrage would be helpful in preventing flooding.

Mr. Michael: The NRA's authoritative statement is useful, but the evidence to the Committee and elsewhere shows that this is not a matter of dispute. It has been investigated and cleared out of the way, and hon. Members can have full confidence about it.

Mr. Griffiths: Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for trying to enlighten me. I accept that a dispute still exists, but for the sake of my argument I am happy to accept the NRA's statement about the prevention of flooding.
The page entitled "Bay Water Quality" states:
The new freshwater lake will be fed by the Taff and Ely rivers and water will flow out through the Barrage. While not tidal, a continuous management programme will see to the removal of debris and algae that may accumulate on the shores and on the surface of the lake.
Good.
Special equipment will keep the lake water oxygenated when river flows are very low. Today, salmon breed again in the Taff river after many years absence, a sure sign of improving water quality.
Good.
Diversion of 14 main sewers will remove a major source of pollution. Standards set by the National Rivers Authority and effective control of industrial pollution will further improve the quality of water in the lake and thus make possible a greater range of water-related activities in the future.
Good.
A management company, fully accountable to the Development Corporation, will manage the Barrage and the Bay and water quality in the lake. It will be funded from income generated by a property portfolio and without recourse to local authority funds.
Good.
Let us look at some of those statements. The NRA is directly quoted to substantiate the argument that the barrage will help to prevent flooding, but although reference is made to the NRA on the subject of water quality, there is no positive statement from that independent organisation that building the barrage will result in a satisfactory water environment. I believe that the NRA has ruled out the possibility of water contact sports because of the dangers for people who may fall into the water when participating in them.

Mr. Michael: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend by saying that that applies to many other inland waters, both natural and artificial. A case in point is Roth park lake, which is greatly valued even though the water quality is not marvellous. I invite my hon. Friend to consider the water in Bute east dock, which comes from the same source as will the water behind the barrage and which is already greatly appreciated by the general public in Cardiff.

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend wants to put up the best case that he can for the barrage and the lake, but, as I understand it, the water behind the barrage will be completely different in nature from that which is now held in the docks. The building of the barrage will change the whole water regime in the Cardiff bay area. That is why there is such a big difference and one cannot compare what happens in Cardiff docks at present with the state of play that will pertain after the barrage is built. I find it most disturbing that, on the issue of bay water quality, the promoters did not see fit to get the National Rivers Authority to make a positive statement about the safety of the water and the freedom from pollution and other possible dangers that could be attendant on the management of the water behind the barrage.
My other major concern about the management of the quality of the water behind the barrage would not arise so much at times of low water. One can have water oxygenation equipment and we know that, in many parts of the world, it represents an extremely successful way of


keeping the water healthy for the forms of life to be found in it. But I foresee a major difficulty arising at times when the river Taff is in spate. It is all very well to talk about the diversion of 14 main sewers but that is nothing like the number of sewers that pour into the Taff and Ely rivers at times of severe flooding, which happens very frequently in Wales during the winter months. We are famous for our rainfall. The rivers Taff and Ely readily flood, and the fact that the bay water quality leaflet makes no real mention of how to deal with water quality problems when the rivers are in flood is a major obstacle to our accepting the carry-over motion.
There is one further reason why I remain firmly convinced that we should not accept the carry-over motion—it has to do with the groundwater issue. The Minister referred to that and said that amendments had been made in Committee. He explained that further studies would be made in the light of which the Welsh Office would make a decision. Unfortunately, the end result of those studies could still be controversy. I do not think that it would be fair to place such a burden of responsibility on any Minister at the Welsh Office, especially given the high degree of commitment that the Welsh Office has to the barrage and to the present proposals for the development of Cardiff bay.
If we consider the groundwater issue, as outlined in this leaflet, which is designed to convince us that the correct thing to do would be to go along with the carry-over motion, we learn:
The water impounded by the Barrage will raise the groundwater level in south and central Cardiff, which the Promoters have always recognised could affect some basements.
As I understand it, it took a lot of persuasion to get them to that position. Nevertheless, finally and because of the weight of the argument, they were persuaded to take account of this issue. In the beginning, however, the promoters tended to dismiss such arguments and only after seeing the weight of the evidence did they begin to accept that they would have to do something about the matter.
The leaflet also states:
Independent experts commissioned by the Promoters say that this will not cause structural damage"—
hooray—
cellars may become damp or at worst wet—but groundwater experts say that most properties will be unaffected.
There is a nice diagram to illustrate that point, but it does not convince me.
We are then told:
Under the Bill there will be a comprehensive protection system for residents. The Bay management must survey properties within an agreed 'Protected Property Line' and undertake remedial action at no cost to occupiers. The protection will last for 20 years from the time of remedial work. The Development Corporation will initiate the general surveys and there will be a detailed code of practice to safeguard householders' rights.
Surveys will be undertaken over a wide area and will ensure that no property is without protection. It is estimated that only about 1,600 properties may require work and residents will have free access to an independent Complaints Administrator.
Residents outside the 'Protected Property Line' will also be fully safeguarded by the provisions of the Bill.
But why are they not dealt with in the same way as those within the protected property line?
We are then told—this might be looked on as a comfort to sustain the argument for the carry-over—that

More computer modelling work on groundwater aspects is already underway to cover points of concern in the Petitioners' evidence. This will be reported to the Secretary of State and will be taken into account in his decision.
Yes, but that is the crux of the whole way in which the Cardiff bay barrage and the Bill intended to enable it to go ahead have been examined. We are running before we can walk. We are putting the cart before the horse.

Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend must accept that the last time we discussed this matter he was one of the few who showed a detailed knowledge of the environmental reports that had been made. My hon. Friend is not doing himself justice tonight by quoting a weak summary of the argument when he knows that a great deal of respectable scientific work has been carried out. The collection of headings and generalisations to which he refers are untrue.

Mr. Griffiths: I am conscious, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we do not want to detain the House—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): What I am conscious of is that we are dealing with a carry-over motion to which I hope the hon. Gentleman will refer from time to time and that he will not get carried away with the general argument.

Mr. Griffiths: I have been trying to keep that at the forefront of my mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, all evening.

Madam Deputy Speaker: You could have fooled me.

Mr. Griffiths: The trouble is that interventions often cause me to go down the wrong track.
If I can be allowed to carry on with what I want to say, my answer to the very important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Flynn) is that I do not dispute the fact that a number of studies have been carried out—some are still being carried out—on the groundwater aspects of the building of the Cardiff bay barrage. I contend that it is inappropriate for us to be discussing the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill and the carry-over motion that will enable the Bill to continue on its course through the House while the studies are incomplete.
The most important point of all is that the people who could be affected by the rising groundwater should know the results of all the surveys before we give the Bill further consideration. We can have differences of opinion about the importance or otherwise of the sites of special scientific interest, but we cannot have a difference of opinion about the fact that the barrage should not go ahead until all the studies are completed and available for our inspection. We should not allow the studies to go on and then let the Welsh Office decide once they are completed. That would place the Welsh Office in an invidious position. It has already made it clear this evening that it fully supports the barrage. If there is still contention about the effects of the groundwater after the studies are completed, it would be wrong to let the Welsh Office decide. That is why I hope that the House will reject the carry-over motion.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: As you have said, Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) went into detailed arguments about different parts of the Bill. Like the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), he discussed the economic case. Indeed, the hon. Member for


Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney concentrated upon it entirely. I believe that both hon. Gentlemen made the case for the motion.
Within the narrow confines of what we can properly debate on this motion we cannot resolve these detailed economic matters or some of the other points that have been mentioned. The logical outcome of passing the motion would be to allow the Bill to go forward to Report stage, when all these points can be properly dealt with, all the detail can be examined and, I hope, when all hon. Members can be satisfied, at least as far as that is possible. These matters should be discussed on Report, not in a debate on this motion.
I shall try to remain within the limits of the motion and not be called to order. I want to respond briefly to the lengthy contribution made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). I shall not discuss the minor part of his speech dealing with the environment, because I have a healthy appreciation of his concern for environmental matters; but the major part of his speech was about the backing for the Bill. He went so far as to misrepresent the fact that seldom has there been a Bill that enjoys such overwhelming support in South Glamorgan.
Four of the five Members who represent South Glamorgan strongly support the barrage Bill. Many councillors in the Cardiff city, South Glamorgan and Vale of Glamorgan councils support the Bill. More than 80 per cent. of councillors in the area support it—a good demonstration of the support among the tiers of elected representatives in the area.
Support for the Bill is not confined to one political party. The Labour party controls South Glamorgan council, the Conservatives control the Vale of Glamorgan council and Cardiff city council is a hung council. Both major parties in Cardiff strongly support the Bill.

Mr. Morgan: I think that the hon. Gentleman may be misleading the House. If he means that Labour councillors support the project he may well be right, but he is not right if he means that the Labour party supports the project. Four of the five general management committees of the Labour party are against the barrage. [Interruption.] I am not sure what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who is sitting behind me, is trying to say. In the last 12 months those general management committees in South Glamorgan have voted against the barrage by majorities of 2:1, 3:1, 4:1 and 5:1.

Mr. Jones: I hope that I am not misleading the House. I cannot speak well about Labour party management committees, but the sotto voce comment from behind the hon. Gentleman suggested that he might well have been misleading the House. In every respect it must be true to say that all elected representatives from the major parties are in favour. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) would like to contribute to the debate because I understand that the minor party, the Liberal party, on Cardiff city council and in South Glamorgan is very much in favour of the Bill. I urge the House to support the motion.
I appreciate the built-in frustration of debating a private Bill. That has been well covered. However, for the moment it is the only way for us to consider the matter and it has resulted in long and exhaustive consideration. In its

way such a Bill is no different from other Bills. Earlier, we debated the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill and a great raft of mainly Government amendments went through in a short time. It is naive for anyone to expect a Bill to emerge unchanged at the end of the parliamentary process. Such a Bill would be a minor one. Bills are made better by amendments.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jones: I hope to be brief but I had better give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Griffiths: I would not expect the Bill to remain unamended. One of my major points was that such a contentious issue as groundwater should be settled before the Bill is debated. That is my objection to the motion.

Mr. Jones: How can we make progress without accepting the motion? The matters that worry the hon. Gentleman can be moved forward and debated at another stage.
The Bill has been improved by the consideration that it has already had. The fact that we are discussing an exceptional measure fully justifies the basic principle of a carry-over motion. The Bill is exceptional because of what it will achieve. It will lead to the redevelopment of south Cardiff and new jobs and homes and will be a tremendous boost to our economy and to the capital city of Wales. Of course, that is already happening, because Cardiff is talked about far and wide. However, the benefits from the Bill will extend to a wider area. It would be a tragedy if the motion were defeated and the Bill were lost.
There has already been a substantial investment in the Bill of time, money and activity. Many people, such as hon. Members, the two councils, the development corporation and others have made that investment. It has not been mentioned so I shall put on record our thanks to the four members of the Select Committee who spent 26 or 27 painstaking days going through the Bill. They were my hon. Friends the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks), and for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and the hon. Members for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) and for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh). We owe all of them a debt of gratitude.
That Committee was quite innovative. I think that it was the first time that a Committee has taken evidence outside the House on the matter. Certainly, it must have been the first time that a Committee took evidence in song on it. It would be a tragedy if all that hard work and exceptional consideration were lost. Not least, it would be tragic in view of all that has been done to resolve the reasonable doubts in south Wales. Contrary to what was said by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) my impression of south Wales is that opposition to the Bill is fast receding. From what I read of the front-page headlines in South Gamorgan, opposition in the Labour party there is receding. The greatest attempts are being made to resolve all the legitimate concerns. All along, those who have wanted to promote this scheme have appreciated the concerns, and all involved have been doing all that they can to help those who are worried that they might be disadvantaged by what happens if the Bill is passed.
I noticed recently that the city council gave money to the Cardiff flood action committee, not because it agreed with the position that the committee had taken but in the


spirit of trying to help those who are worried by the Bill. That same spirit has been shown by everyone, particularly the officials of the two councils and the development corporation.
If we were to carry on with the detailed arguments, we should not achieve the real purpose of the motion. The only way to resolve the detailed arguments is to agree to the motion so that we can have further debates. Not to resolve it in that way would be the greatest tragedy for south Wales.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I wholeheartedly agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and others about the sad passing away of Councillor John Reynolds, who was the Labour leader on Cardiff city council and who served as a member of the board of the Cardiff Bay development corporation. The very first job that I ever had was as a tutor-organiser with the south Wales district of the Workers Educational Association. I was told that my job was to go out and find more John Reynolds. He had been a booking clerk, and he went on to make a major contribution first to education and then to the public service, serving on the city council for several decades. For the two years that I was with the WEA, I tried to find more such people, before handing my job on to others who are far better known in public life and politics.
I ask the House to sink this barrage before it sinks half my consituency.

Mr. Flynn: That is a wild exaggeration.

Mr. Morgan: I feared that there might be a sedentary comment from the back row in response to that, although I am not sure what the definition of wild exaggeration might be. Anybody who thinks that that is a wild exaggeration should turn to the evidence presented to the Select Committee on this point. Earlier, we had the presence of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), but there are no members of the Committee present now, so I had better read the evidence of a witness expert in groundwater computer modelling, which is a way to predict what would happen after a barrage was built. This is relevant to whether we should agree to the carry-over motion.
The House will have to allow for the elision in the banter between the witness and the Chairman in these questions and answers. The Chairman asked:
Thousands of people will suffer from groundwater problems if the model is wrong?
Dr. Miles, the witness, said:
Yes, and rather than enhancing Cardiff, it would turn it into a laughing stock; this is the city that turned itself into a swamp—how would that look in the papers?
Later, the Chairman asked:
'Urban swamp' was your own phrase. I tried to rhyme 'Miles' with 'urban swamp'"—
this is the banter—
and I failed to come up with something, I must confess!
Dr. Miles, having done the donkey work necessary to make an accurate prediction, within the best parameters, using the best technology in computer modelling and accurate field work when collecting the data that goes into the computer model, predicted that the barrage would

present a serious danger of turning the low-lying areas of Cardiff into an urban swamp. That is the risk that I am being asked to take on behalf of my constituents.
I take the matter seriously because we are being asked to pass a carry-over motion even though the studies are not yet complete. It is obvious from the debate that this is a unique motion. We are being asked to approve, on behalf of our constituents, a pig-in-a-poke.
The technical studies were demanded by a majority of the Select Committee. One member wanted to throw it out, but the other three agreed that, procedurally, the Bill should come this far, even though they did not think that it was proper for the barrage to be built. From what the Minister said earlier, we will not know the results of the studies for another 18 months. We are being asked to continue the life of the Bill even though that is irrelevant because the actual decision will be made not by Parliament, with most unusually restricted rights for petitioners and objectors, but by the Secretary of State for Wales after he has had written representations and has consulted his new expert from the centre for irrigation studies at Southampton university.
As far as I am aware, never before have we been asked to approve a Bill that is subject to the Secretary of State having the last word. It is like the Select Committee saying that it did not really think it safe to proceed with the barrage, but it did not want to kill the Bill. We are being told, "Bear with us, take it all on trust and the Secretary of State will play a fair-minded, neutral, quasi-judicial planning role when he makes up his mind in 18 months."

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my hon. Friend aware that next year could be election year? If so, the carry-over motion means that we will be discussing the Bill in election year. What happens in an election year? The Government start Bills but do not finish them. The Prime Minister will be deciding the date of the election, she will be looking for that window of opportunity, she will be fiddling every set of statistics that she can, she will not know whether she is coming or going, the ERM will go sour, and in the middle of all that someone will say to her, "Do you know, Prime Minister, that we have not yet finished the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill?" What is she likely to say in the middle of all that? It will be, "Stuff the Bill", or something like that. She will not come here in her carpet slippers at 10 or 12 o'clock at night to vote for the Bill. She will have other fish to fry.
I am hoping to speak in the debate about the electoral consequences of the Bill. In some circumstances, they could be helpful to the Labour party. I am looking at it from both angles. Has my hon. Friend examined it from a wider political view?

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has given us yet further proof that he is not thinking of crossing the Floor.
It is quite likely that there will have been an election before the results of the further inquiries are known, yet we are being asked to pass a carry-over motion tonight.
We must consider the alternatives if the motion is refused. The promoters of the barrage could return when they have finished their studies. They could then say that they have used the best technology available and the best computer modelling experts, and then give their prediction for the level of groundwater in the affected low-lying areas


of the three constituencies concerned. We will then know the price of the barrage; tonight, we are being asked to buy a pig-in-a-poke.
The groundwater issue is of concern to my constituency. Obviously, it also affects the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. The barrage will be in his constituency, but water does not respect parliamentary boundaries. On the other side of the River Taff, it will also affect the highly marginal constituency of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist). In terms of residential areas, my constituency will be most affected. Roughly 40 per cent. of them fall within my constituency, 35 per cent. within the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and 20 per cent. within Cardiff, Central, the Under-Secretary of State's constituency. The barrage will have an effect in those areas.
If the mouths of the Taff and the Ely are impounded, the resulting lake may be in my hon. Friend's constituency, but two fingers of it will extend into my constituency and that of the Minister. But the water under the surface, residentially speaking, affects my constituency more than any other, so I am very concerned about it.

Mr. Skinner: Residentially speaking?

Mr. Morgan: I do not know whether my hon. Friend remembers his days underground.

Mr. Skinner: Yes.

Mr. Morgan: He would have been extremely conscious of water under the ground. Water beneath one's house is as important as water flooding a coal mine. I do not want my constituents to live in the equivalent of a flooded coal mine.
Since about 7.30 this evening I have been in a position to present some new evidence to the House on that very issue. It is pretty sensational because it cuts completely across the assurances given in the wonderful pop-up birthday card sent to all Members of Parliament by Cardiff Bay development corporation, at great public expense, and about as factual as one.
The information that I want to give to the House is the result of the fieldwork carried out by—

MR. MICHAEL rose in his place, and claimed to move,

That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 10.

Division No. 323]
[12.26 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Burt, Alistair


Amess, David
Butcher, John


Arbuthnot, James
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Ashby, David
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Atkins, Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Chope, Christopher


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Baldry, Tony
Conway, Derek


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Boswell, Tim
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bottomley, Peter
Curry, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bowis, John
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Burns, Simon
Dixon, Don





Dorrell, Stephen
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Maude, Hon Francis


Dover, Den
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Durant, Tony
Meale, Alan


Fallon, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fishburn, John Dudley
Michael, Alun


Flynn, Paul
Miller, Sir Hal


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forth, Eric
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Foster, Derek
Murphy, Paul


Freeman, Roger
Needham, Richard


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Goodlad, Alastair
Oppenheim, Phillip


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Paice, James


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Grist, Ian
Parry, Robert


Ground, Patrick
Patnick, Irvine


Hague, William
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Portillo, Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Redwood, John


Harris, David
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Haynes, Frank
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hind, Kenneth
Ryder, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howells, Geraint
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jack, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Jackson, Robert
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Key, Robert
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sumberg, David


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Tredinnick, David


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Trippier, David


Lang, Ian
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Waller, Gary


Lightbown, David
Wareing, Robert N.


Lilley, Peter
Wheeler, Sir John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Widdecombe, Ann


McFall, John
Wood, Timothy


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Yeo, Tim


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Maclean, David



Malins, Humfrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mans, Keith
Mr. Gwilym Jones and


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Mr. Ray Powell.


NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Pike, Peter L.


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Skinner, Dennis


Corbyn, Jeremy
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Cryer, Bob



Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Tellers for the Noes:


Morgan, Rhodri
Mr. Ted Rowlands and


Nellist, Dave
Mr. Win Griffiths.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly—

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 10.

Division No. 324]
[at 12.40 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Bottomley, Peter


Amess, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Arbuthnot, James
Bowis, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burns, Simon


Ashby, David
Burt, Alistair


Atkins, Robert
Butcher, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baldry, Tony
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Chapman, Sydney


Bevan, David Gilroy
Chope, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)






Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Malins, Humfrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Mans, Keith


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Curry, David
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Maude, Hon Francis


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Dixon, Don
Meale, Alan


Dorrell, Stephen
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Michael, Alun


Dover, Den
Miller, Sir Hal


Durant, Tony
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fallon, Michael
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Murphy, Paul


Flynn, Paul
Needham, Richard


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Forth, Eric
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Foster, Derek
Oppenheim, Phillip


Freeman, Roger
Paice, James


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Parry, Robert


Goodlad, Alastair
Patnick, Irvine


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Portillo, Michael


Grist, Ian
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Ground, Patrick
Redwood, John


Hague, William
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Harris, David
Ryder, Richard


Haynes, Frank
Sackville, Hon Tom


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Hind, Kenneth
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Howells, Geraint
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Jack, Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Jackson, Robert
Sumberg, David


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Key, Robert
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Tredinnick, David


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Kirkhope, Timothy
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Waller, Gary


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lang, Ian
Wareing, Robert N.


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Wheeler, Sir John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Widdecombe, Ann


Lightbown, David
Wood, Timothy


Lilley, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


McFall, John



MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Ayes:


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Mr. Gwilym Jones, and


Maclean, David
Mr. Derek Conway.


NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Pike, Peter L.


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Skinner, Dennis


Corbyn, Jeremy
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Cryer, Bob



Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Tellers for the Noes:


Morgan, Rhodri
Mr. Ted Rowlands and


Nellist, Dave
Mr. Win Griffiths.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill

Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered,
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended in the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

PROCEDURE

Motion made,
That this House agrees with the recommendations contained in the First Report of the Select Committee on Procedure of this Session (House of Commons Paper No. 379).—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Hon. Members: Object.

QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS, ETC.

Motion made,
That with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament Standing Order No. 17 (Questions to Members) and Standing Order No. 18 (Notices of motions, amendments and questions) be repealed and the following Standing Orders be made—

Time for taking questions

(l)—Questions shall be taken on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, after private business has been disposed of.

(2) No question shall be taken after half-past three o'clock, except questions which have not appeared on the paper but which are in Mr. Speaker's opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business.

(3) Any questions tabled for written answer on a day on which the House does not sit by reason of the continuance of a previous sitting shall be deemed to be questions for written answer on the next sitting day and shall appear on the Order Paper for that day.

Notices of questions, motions and amendments

(l)—Notices of questions shall be given by Members in writing to the Table Office.

(2) A notice of a question, or of an amendment to a motion standing on the Order Paper for which no day has been fixed or of the addition of a name in support of such a motion or amendment, which is given after half-past ten o'clock in the evening shall be treated for all purposes as if it were a notice handed in after the rising of the House.

(3) A Member shall indicate on the notice of any question whether it is for oral, written or priority written answer.

(4) Where a Member has indicated that a question is for priority written answer the Minister shall cause an answer to be given to the Member on the date for which notice has been given, provided that the requirement of notice shall be the same for such questions as that prescribed in this order for questions for oral answer.

(5) Notice of a question for oral answer may not be given on a day earlier than ten sitting days before the day for answer, provided that, where that earliest day would otherwise fall on a Friday, the earliest day on which such notice may be given will instead be the previous sitting day.

(6) Notice of any question for oral answer must appear at latest on the notice paper circulated two days (excluding Saturday and Sunday) before that on which an answer is desired.

(7) When it is proposed that the House shall adjourn for a period of less than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purpose of calculating the period in paragraph (5) of this order.

(8) When notice shall have been given of a Motion for the adjournment of the House for more than three days Mr. Speaker may cause to have printed and circulated with the Vote a memorandum superseding the provisions of paragraphs (5) and (6) of this order and instead setting out the earliest day on which notice of questions for oral answer may be given for each of the first ten sitting days after that adjournment, provided that each such day shall as far as practicable fall on the same day of the week as that on which the question is to be answered and shall not be fewer than fourteen days before the day for answer; and also setting out the latest day for notice of questions for oral answer on each of the first two sitting days following that adjournment provided that each such day shall not be fewer than two days (excluding Saturday and Sunday) before the day for answer.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Portsmouth Naval Base

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mr. David Martin: The debate arises from the present and latest consideration within the Ministry of Defence of the future of the fleet maintenance and repair organisation in Portsmouth dockyard, which is crucial to the future of the dockyard. It follows upon a letter which I received in September from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, who is making tonight his first appearance at the Government Dispatch Box since taking up his ministerial duties in July, and whom I welcome wholeheartedly.
With about half of all naval personnel and their families living in Portsmouth, or within its immediate area, the considerations generated by the debate cannot be confined merely to the naval base. Its future has profound implications for the future scope and effectiveness of the Royal Navy itself. We must never forget that the Royal Navy is the world's third largest as an effective fighting force, and I want it to remain so.
The people of Portsmouth—above all, the debate is about people—have grown used over the centuries to cuts in times of peace and to expansion in war. There is a deep understanding of such necessities. These are timely considerations in the present Gulf crisis. In the euphoria of the aftermath of events in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, there was much talk of a peace dividend, of making huge cuts in our armed forces, including a drastic reduction of ships in the Royal Navy. I did not share that judgment, and to his everlasting credit nor did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I asked him during the most recent defence questions on 17 July whether he agreed with me
that it would be criminal folly to reduce our defences, including nuclear weapons, to a lower level than any eventuality, however unforeseeable, might demand?"—[Official Report, 17 July 1990; Vol. 176, c. 847.]
My right hon. Friend's reply, and subsequent remarks in the "options for change" statement a week later, were encouraging.
The events of 2 August and subsequently in the Gulf wholly vindicate such an approach. Many of our ships are serving in the Gulf and more are likely to be needed. Thank goodness for the Royal Navy and for Portsmouth dockyard and those who serve it so well. The present investigation into the future management of the FMRO identifies several options, depending on several assumptions. I have not the time to explore them all. No one expects the present arrangements to continue indefinitely. Change is expected, and positive change will be welcome.
Before dealing with the options, I want to underline the importance of my hon. Friend reaching a swift decision. An interim report is sought from the consultants by 14 December, with a final report in February 1991. I suspect that the December report will be the vital one on which irrevocable decisions will be made. Apart from docking and essential maintenance work, the type 42 refit stream is being kept employed on HMS Nottingham, with a planned finish in August 1991. At that time, the FMRO was expecting HMS Manchester, but Plymouth's needs appear to be winning that order.
Portsmouth will suffer grievously from indecision and I urge my hon. Friend not to permit it. Whatever the


structure of management, we need a continuous programme of work to keep the strengths of the FMRO together and the morale and confidence of its work force assured.
The options include privatisation and the introduction of commercial arrangements similar to Plymouth. However, the option I wish to be adopted, which I wish to concentrate on as the positive option, is the introduction of a defence support agency with a trading fund. That would assume a core programme of docking and essential defects on ships based at Portsmouth. Such an option keeps military control and the prized integration of service and civilian personnel which I referred to in my maiden speech almost exactly three years ago and which has been working so effectively since 1984. That integration also provides the best safeguard against industrial action.
Such an option would, in addition, give an undisputed yardstick for comparing costs so that the FMRO can compete fairly in the marketplace through tendering for naval refits or any other suitable work such as cross channel ferry maintenance and repair, rather than risking it going to French yards. Had such a structure been in place last year, we probably would not have lost the type 42 HMS Southampton repair and refit, which was a great blow at the time. Such a structure would keep in being the apprenticeships, of which there are 125 at present and 32 a year, which provide vital opportunities for young people in the work force.
The alternative to that option, which is the worst and most unacceptable of all, is a bollards and fenders option—in effect, closing down the existing FMRO, selling off the greater part of the dockyard and using what is left as a parking lot for ships, with all necessary work being contracted for and usually to be carried out at a great distance from Portsmouth.
To pursue such an option, or any other tantamount to it, would be foolhardy in the extreme for several reasons. Of the three dockyards—Portsmouth, Plymouth and Rosyth—Portsmouth is the most sensible in which to concentrate work on ships. It would be wise to increase the number of ships based there, and there is space. The policies of harmony, Slimtrain and others have for many years led to the highest concentration of people, ships with home base and training bases in Portsmouth and its area. Apart from the naval base, including HMS Nelson and Gunwharf—I press as strongly as possible for the special clearance diving unit to remain there—there is Collingwood, Whale island, which is soon to have the addition of Phoenix, Sultan, Dryad and Mercury, which is being transferred to Collingwood.
That is why I referred earlier to approximately half of all royal naval personnel and families living in Portsmouth or near to it. To reverse such policies would lead to excessive separation and the loss of good men and women, would risk personal morale and would have a serious effect on recruitment. It would be incomprehensible to many serving in the Royal Navy, let alone the people of the city of Portsmouth.
The city, as my hon. Friend is well aware, has coped magnificently with previous large reductions in the work force, which is reliant on the dockyard. A heritage area has grown up around HMS Victory and the royal naval museum, which comprises the Mary Rose and Warrior. Massive new investment is planned there. A thriving ferry port has increased in strength and importance, but to pursue any option that neuters the naval base, the core of

the royal naval presence in Portsmouth, would be to sacrifice centuries of the closest and most fruitful relationship between the city and the Royal Navy, to the damage of both.
This brings me to the third and final strand of the debate. It concerns Navy days. Practically everybody in the United Kingdom is aware of Portsmouth's Navy days. For many visitors in late August, that is why they come to Portsmouth. They and those who live in the area produced an attendance of about 70,000 at Navy days this year. Navy days began in Portsmouth and are a veritable showcase of the Royal Navy. They make a sizeable profit every year, even after allowing for the greatly increased costs of security arrangements. This year, the net profit was £106,000, which was shared between various naval charities, chief among them the King George V Fund for Sailors. By contrast, Plymouth-Devonport attracted merely 23,000 visitors to its Navy days and made a net profit of £15,000.
It is rumoured that we are to lose our annual Navy days, to alternate them with Plymouth. I cannot understand why successful Portsmouth should suffer for the deficiencies of Plymouth as a magnet; nor can my constituents. It is not just a question of having an aircraft carrier to inspect. Portsmouth has many other related attractions. It is highly successful; it is not remote; and it is central, with an enormous catchment area.
Annual Navy days are a vital catalyst of interest in naval affairs by the public which has contributed to the special affection in which the Royal Navy is held. Portsmouth is inextricably linked with that feeling. The contribution of our Navy days to recruitment over the years should never be underestimated. This unique throwing open of the gates should be retained every year. There is no sense, operationally or financially, in jettisoning such a successful and profitable—particularly for charities—annual occasion.
I should like to draw together the strands of the matters that I have raised. The presence of the Royal Navy in Portsmouth and the surrounding area, with its core at the naval base, is above all about people who are proud of its service and traditions. Napoleons, Kaisers, Hiders, Galtieris and Husseins are always popping up in one guise or another. That is understood in Portsmouth as nowhere else in Britain in greater measure.
In Portsmouth, generation after generation of citizens and families have crammed the ancient battlements, crowded the shores or massed at the entrance to one of the greatest harbours in the world to mingle their tears, cheers, enthusiasm and profound respect in seeing off or welcoming home the men who do their duty in fighting our battles, in risking life and well-being for the preservation of our freedoms. That is the very lifeblood and spirit of Portsmouth. It will never be dated, and it will never be redundant.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): I am delighted to be able to reply to the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin), partly because he has been kind enough to give me the opportunity to make my debut at the Dispatch Box but chiefly because it gives me the opportunity to discuss Her Majesty's naval base at Portsmouth.
My hon. Friend is a staunch fighter for his constituency. In my short time at the Ministry of Defence, he has already made known to me several times his concern about Portsmouth. I know that I shall become used to his vigour in the months ahead. I sense from his speech his pride for his town and his determination to protect it. As he advised me, Portsmouth has a long and distinguished naval history. As long ago as the reign of King Henry VII, the first real dry dock and yard were built just outside the town. Henry VII built up a fleet in the face of the threat from France and chose Portsmouth for his dockyard and naval base. This progress was consolidated over the next 150 years and, by the end of the 17th century, Portsmouth was recognised as the chief naval centre of England. Its distinguished naval tradition continued for the next two centuries and capital warships were built there until the end of the first world war.
More recently, the Falklands war in 1982 saw the same degree of dedication from Portsmouth that we had learnt to expect in previous wars. HMS Hermes sailed for the South Atlantic on 5 April 1982 from Portsmouth and became the flagship of the task force, which was to grow into the largest fleet to sail from the shores of Britain since world war 2. Portsmouth also converted more ships taken up from trade than any other yard—21 in all. Again, Portsmouith met the challenge with its traditional spirit.
My hon. Friend represents a constituency with a unique and proud naval tradition, but he knows that history shows that the needs of the armed forces change over time. For example, the defence review of 1981 identified the need to reorganise defence efforts to obtain the best return from the defence budget. As a result, the role of Portsmouth dockyard was changed in March 1984 when it became the fleet maintenance and repair organisation, or FMRO as it is habitually known.
My hon. Friend has raised a number of important points and I should now like to deal more specifically with them. As the declaration at the London NATO summit in July recognised, Europe has entered a new and more promising era to which the alliance must and will adapt. As my hon. Friend knows, in the light of these developments, the United Kingdom, along with its major NATO allies, has been conducting a thorough review of the way in which our armed forces might be restructured in the mid 1990s.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced the broad thrust of the proposals that we had under consideration for our own armed forces in his announcement to the House on "Options for Change" on 25 July. My hon. Friend said that he understood the need for that statement, and expressed his general support for it.
In announcing the proposals for changes in our force structures, the Secretary of State also made it clear that we would be looking for substantial savings in the support area. As I am sure my hon. Friend would agree, if we are to achieve our aim of strong and reliable forces but at a lower level and at an affordable cost, we must carry out the most rigorous and wide-ranging examination of all our activities and resources in the support area to ensure that we are providing that support in the most effective and cheapest way. However, as my hon. Friend knows, many complex and inter-related factors impinge on the way

forward and require proper evaluation. It is still far too early for any decisions to have been reached as a result of this continuing work.
In parallel with and as an input to our work on "Options for Change", as my hon. Friend knows, we are undertaking a study looking into the future of the FMRO. The study has a long pedigree. I do not want to burden the House with a lengthy account, but I think that it is important to record the background against which we find ourselves needing to review our ship refitting capacity generally, and the Portsmouth capacity in particular.
Since the introduction of commercial management at Devonport and Rosyth in 1987, there has been a steady decline in the core programme of refits allocated to those yards. The decline has been faster and to a lower level than expected before vesting day when the term contracts were negotiated with Devonport Management Limited, or DML and Babcock Thorn Limited, or BTL. Devonport, with a higher proportion of surface ship work, has seen a particularly sharp drop in load. More than 4,000 jobs have been shed by DML since vesting day in an attempt to keep productivity ahead of the declining load and compete for new business.
Equally, I acknowledge that Portsmouth endured a major reduction earlier in the 1980s when civilian jobs declined from 7,000 to under 3,000. Since then, however, the FMRO workload has been kept fairly constant while the load elsewhere has declined. The aim of the study is to examine the role of the FMRO in the light of the reduction in the overall fleet repair and maintenance task, given the need to secure value for money. As my hon. Friend knows, the study will be undertaken by external consultants.
I want to stress that no decisions have yet been taken on the future workload at Portsmouth. The consultants will be invited to recommend separate arrangements for each of three different workload scenarios. One is broadly the status quo; another is the status quo less the few refits currently in Portsmouth's programme, leaving the intermediate dockings, other routine maintenance periods and unprogrammed work intact; and the last is to leave only berthing facilities, with the ships docking elsewhere for deep repair or refitting.
It is necessary to study this wide range of workload alternatives so that the future of the FMRO can be better determined within the context of our wider work in the fleet support area on "Options for Change". The smaller fleet envisaged for the mid-1990s implies significant rationalisation of shore support. The FMRO study will therefore form a useful input into that broader study of our naval bases, dockyards and other support facilities. We hope to be in a position to make that input by the turn of the year. I understand what my hon. Friend said about speedy decisions and the need to avoid uncertainty as far as possible.
My hon. Friend also mentioned his wish for a defence support agency. As one of the alternatives, the study will also have to consider whether that status would be suitable for the FMRO.
I should like to follow my predecessors in paying tribute to the dedication and skill of the work force in the FMRO, both service and civilian, who have a record of which to be proud, not least in recent weeks as they have helped prepare the ships deployed to the Gulf on operation Granby. As I have said, this is service in the great tradition of Portsmouth, and we pay tribute to that, as my hon. Friend did so proudly.
My hon. Friend referred to the effects on the morale of the naval community of any decision to diminish or abandon the naval presence at Portsmouth. I understand that concern. As part of the continuing work on "Options for Change", and as part of the FMRO study, we shall take carefully into account issues related to morale. I regard that as particularly important. It is, however, as I have already emphasised, too early to make announcements since this work remains to be completed. The interests of the Portsmouth naval community, service and civilian, will of course be given careful weight before any decisions are taken. Of course, I understand the worries that any review creates, but we should be negligent if we did not look carefully at all the options before us.
My hon. Friend also expressed concern about the future of Portsmouth Navy days. He may find it helpful if I explain the current position. As he is certainly aware, Navy days are currently held each year at Portsmouth, Plymouth, Rosyth and Portland. We have, however, initiated a review of the present arrangements. Pending the outcome of the review, it is intended to introduce interim revised arrangements for Navy days in 1991. Under these revised arrangements, Rosyth and Portland would continue to host Navy days as at present, but major Navy days would alternate between Plymouth and Portsmouth every year. It is planned to hold that event in Plymouth in 1991. I know that that may well be a disappointment to my hon. Friend.
The principal reason behind the change is to

concentrate assets at one major port each year so as to make more efficient use of available resources, and to ensure the best possible show for the public. It is far better to have one really good show than two shows with less panache and zest. I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that we need to strike an appropriate balance between the many competing demands on the fleet's ships and personnel. No decision on future arrangements beyond 1991 will be taken until after the review. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that we shall take full account of the popularity and value of Navy days at Portsmouth and at the other venues when reaching a decision.
I recognise and have taken note of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend on behalf of Portsmouth naval base and its naval and civilian personnel. I assure him that we are very much alive to those concerns and that they will be given their due weight as we go forward with our examination of the infrastructure needed to support the fleet in the changing circumstances that have come upon us.
I said at the beginning of my speech that my hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for Portsmouth. I respect his efforts and I welcome the opportunity to work closely with him over the months ahead. I certainly look forward very much to my forthcoming visit to Portsmouth.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past One o'clock.